DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission on 17 March 2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and currently being examined.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1, 2, 15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as being unpatentable over Shimizu (PG Pub US 20010050040 A1) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1).
In Re Claim 1, the Figure 3 embodiment of Shimizu discloses a diaphragm pump (title) comprising: an inlet (13a; Figure 1) structured to receive a fluid (slurry); an outlet (14a; Figure 1) structured to convey the fluid discharged by the diaphragm pump; a pumping assembly (11, 12; Figure 1) disposed between the inlet (13a) and the outlet (14a); and a split-layer diaphragm (41) disposed within the pumping assembly and comprised of two or more unbonded, non-planar diaphragm layers (31, 32) that each extend radially from an inner section (adjacent to 12) of the split-layer diaphragm (41) to an exterior section (adjacent pressing members 21, 22) of the split-layer diaphragm (41), wherein opposing faces of the two or more unbonded, non-planar diaphragm layers (31, 32) are engaged at the inner section and the exterior section (as depicted in Figure 3) to form a single, sealed volume of closed space entirely within the split-layer diaphragm (41) that extends smoothly from the inner section to the exterior section and is substantially free of lubricant such that the single, sealed, fixed volume of closed space communicates pressure (because the layers make contact, and the diaphragm applies pressure to perform the pumping function) between the two or more unbonded, non-planar diaphragm layers so that the two or more unbonded, non-planar diaphragm layers travel in an intake direction (right arrow of the double arrow labeled “E” in Figure 3) to draw a working fluid into a pumping chamber (22a) defined by the split-layer diaphragm within the pumping assembly, and in a discharge direction (left arrow of the double arrow labeled “E” in Figure 3) to expel the working fluid from the pumping chamber (22a) (paragraphs [0035],[0039],[0040],[0050]; Figures 1, 3).
Shimizu does not explicitly state that the layers travel together in the same direction at the same time, and that the sealed volume is a sealed “fixed” volume.
However, Herklotz discloses a split-layer diaphragm (10, 20) used in a diaphragm pump, the split-layer diaphragm having two unbonded layers (10) and (20) that travel together in the same direction at the same time (because they are coupled together by vacuum like applicant’s invention stated in paragraph [0050]; – see Abstract of Herklotz “airtight and complete bonding”), the vacuum coupling also ensures a single sealed fixed volume between the layers as shown in Figure 1D (Column 3, Lines 36 – 55; Column 4, Lines 30 – 40; Figure 1D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the split-layer diaphragm of Shimizu such that the layers are vacuum coupled such that the single sealed volume is a fixed volume as taught by Herklotz for the purpose of ensuring metering accuracy (Column 4, Lines 30 – 34). Because the claimed limitation “a single, sealed, fixed volume of closed space entirely within the split-layer diaphragm that extends smoothly from the inner section to the exterior section” is obvious over Shimizu in view Herklotz as demonstrated above, it expected that the device of Shimizu / Herklotz would also function the same way as applicant’s invention causing the layers to travel together.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Shimizu
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Shimizu further discloses that each diaphragm layer of the split- layer diaphragm comprises an inwardly cupping, annular convolute (see annotated figure above) extending towards the intake direction (“B”; Figure 1), and the annular convolutes conform to one another to render the split-layer diaphragm non-planar and suitable for mechanical actuations (by 12).
In Re Claim 15, the Figure 3 embodiment of Shimizu discloses a diaphragm (41) structured for use in a diaphragm pump (shown in Figure 1) useful to pump a working fluid comprising: a first non-planar layer (31) extending radially from a first inner section (adjacent to 12) to a first exterior section (adjacent pressing members 21, 22), the first non-planar layer defining a first inwardly cupping, annular convolute (see annotated figure above) extending toward a first direction that corresponds to an intake direction (“B”; Figure 1) for the diaphragm (41); and a second non-planar layer (32) extending radially from a second inner section (adjacent to 12) to a second exterior section (adjacent pressing members 21, 22), the second non-planar layer defining a second inwardly cupping, annular convolute (see annotated figure above) extending toward the first direction (“B”; Figure 1) and conforming to the first inwardly cupping, annular convolute, wherein the second non-planar layer (31) is independent from the first non-planar layer (32), but engaged to the first non-planar layer so that the first non-planar layer (31) and the second non-planar layer (32) form a single, sealed, volume of closed space that extends smoothly from the first and second inner sections to the first and second exterior sections and is substantially free of lubricant entirely within the diaphragm (41), such that the single, sealed, volume of closed space communicates pressure (because the layers make contact, and the diaphragm applies pressure to perform the pumping function) between the first non-planar layer (31) and the second non-planar layer (32) so that the first non-planar layer (31) and the second non-planar layer (32) travel in a same direction at a same time while flexing in the intake direction (right arrow of the double arrow labeled “E” in Figure 3) or a discharge direction (left arrow of the double arrow labeled “E” in Figure 3) within a pumping assembly (Figure 1) (paragraphs [0035], [0039],[0040],[0050]; Figures 1, 3).
Shimizu does not explicitly state that the layers travel together in the same direction at the same time, and that the sealed volume is a sealed “fixed” volume.
However, Herklotz discloses a split-layer diaphragm (10, 20) used in a diaphragm pump, the split-layer diaphragm having two unbonded layers (10) and (20) that travel together in the same direction at the same time (because they are coupled together by vacuum like applicant’s invention stated in paragraph [0050]; – see Abstract of Herklotz “airtight and complete bonding”), the vacuum coupling also ensures a single sealed fixed volume between the layers as shown in Figure 1D (Column 3, Lines 36 – 55; Column 4, Lines 30 – 40; Figure 1D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the split-layer diaphragm of Shimizu such that the layers are vacuum coupled such that the single sealed volume is a fixed volume as taught by Herklotz for the purpose of ensuring metering accuracy (Column 4, Lines 30 – 34). Because the claimed limitation “a single, sealed, fixed volume of closed space entirely within the split-layer diaphragm that extends smoothly from the inner section to the exterior section” is obvious over Shimizu in view Herklotz as demonstrated above, it expected that the device of Shimizu / Herklotz would also function the same way as applicant’s invention causing the layers to travel together.
PNG
media_image2.png
626
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 3 of Shimizu
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Shimizu further discloses sealing feature protruding form the second inner section and configured to press into the first inner section (see annotated excerpt above).
In Re Claim 20, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Shimizu further discloses that the second inwardly cupping, annular convolute substantially matches a curvature of the first inwardly cupping, annular convolute (as evidenced by the annotated figure above).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (PG Pub US 20010050040 A1) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) and further in view of Muck (US Patent 4,773,832 A).
In Re Claim 3, Shimizu and Herklotz disclose all the limitations of Claim 2, but they do not disclose that the mechanical actuator extends through a central interface of the split-layer diaphragm.
However, Muck discloses a mechanical actuator (34, 28, 30) configured to extend through a central interface of the split-layer diaphragm (40, 42, 44), the mechanical actuator (40, 42, 44) being configured to flex the split-layer diaphragm in both the intake direction (to the left in Figures 2 and 3) and the discharge direction (to the right in Figures 2 and 3) so that air is not required on a suction side of the split- layer (this is an intended result limitation that does not additionally limit the structure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the mechanical actuator (12) of Shimizu such that it extends through a central interface of the split-layer diaphragm as taught by Muck for the purpose of allowing easy replacement of the diaphragm if it fails (the actuator 12 of Shimizu appears to be integrally molded with diaphragm layer 32).
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as being unpatentable over Muck (US Patent 4,773,832 A) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1).
In Re Claim 1, Muck discloses a diaphragm pump (Abstract) comprising: an inlet (36; Figure 1) structured to receive a fluid; an outlet (38; Figure 1) structured to convey the fluid discharged by the diaphragm pump; a pumping assembly (34, 28, 30, 1-) disposed between the inlet (36) and the outlet (38); and a split-layer diaphragm (22) disposed within the pumping assembly and comprised of two or more unbonded, non-planar diaphragm layers (40, 42, 44 – Figure 3 shows a curved portion which is therefore non-planar) that each extend radially from an inner section (adjacent to 30) of the split-layer diaphragm to an exterior section (adjacent to 26) of the split-layer diaphragm, wherein opposing faces of the two or more unbonded, non-planar diaphragm layers (40, 42, 44) are engaged at the inner section (by bolt 30) and the exterior section (by bolts 26) to form a single, sealed, volume of closed space entirely within the split-layer diaphragm that extends smoothly from the inner section to the exterior section and is substantially free of lubricant such that the single, sealed, volume of closed space communicates pressure (because the layers make contact, and the diaphragm applies pressure to perform the pumping function) between the two or more unbonded, non-planar diaphragm layers (40, 42, 44) so that the two or more unbonded, non-planar diaphragm layers travel in an intake direction (to the left - from the position in Figure 3 to the position in Figure 2) to draw a working fluid into a pumping chamber (18) defined by the split-layer diaphragm (22) within the pumping assembly, and in a discharge direction (to the right - from the position in Figure 3 to the position in Figure 2) to expel the working fluid from the pumping chamber (18); (Column 2, Line 21 – Column 3, Line 8; Figures 1 – 3).
Muck does not explicitly state that the layers travel together in the same direction at the same time, and that the sealed volume is a sealed “fixed” volume.
However, Herklotz discloses a split-layer diaphragm (10, 20) used in a diaphragm pump, the split-layer diaphragm having two unbonded layers (10) and (20) that travel together in the same direction at the same time (because they are coupled together by vacuum like applicant’s invention stated in paragraph [0050]; – see Abstract of Herklotz “airtight and complete bonding”), the vacuum coupling also ensures a single sealed fixed volume between the layers as shown in Figure 1D (Column 3, Lines 36 – 55; Column 4, Lines 30 – 40; Figure 1D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the split-layer diaphragm of Muck such that the layers are vacuum coupled such that the single sealed volume is a fixed volume as taught by Herklotz for the purpose of ensuring metering accuracy (Column 4, Lines 30 – 34). Because the claimed limitation “a single, sealed, fixed volume of closed space entirely within the split-layer diaphragm that extends smoothly from the inner section to the exterior section” is obvious over Muck in view Herklotz as demonstrated above, it expected that the device of Muck / Herklotz would also function the same way as applicant’s invention causing the layers to travel together.
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and layer (42) is made of a thermoplastic elastomer (polytetrafluoroethylene {Column 3, Line 6} is a thermoplastic), layers (42) and (44) have equal thickness.
Claim(s) 4 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muck (US Patent 4,773,832 A) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) and further in view of Lefebvre (French Patent FR 2934332 A1, original document and Machine Translation provide in parent application # 17156766 as acknowledged by Applicant’s IDS).
In Re Claims 4 – 7, Muck implies a first sealing feature (at 30) and a second sealing feature (at 26) so that fluid doesn’t leak from pumping chamber (18), but the sealing features do not protrude and press as claimed.
However, Lefebvre discloses a first non-planar layer (19), a second non-planar layer (25a or 25b), a first sealing feature (37) protruding from the exterior section of the first non-planar layer and configured to press into the exterior section of the second non-planar layer (25a or 25b), and is in the form of a bead (Page 3, Line 7 of Translation: “circular bead 37”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the first non-planar layer of the diaphragm of Muck / Herklotz to incorporate a protrusion/bead at the exterior or interior section (where the layers are clamped) as taught by Lefebvre because it is only a matter of substituting one sealing feature with another sealing feature, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B). The bead (37) of Lefebvre enables anchoring by clamping and partial crushing of each face on the thick part, this incrustation is favorable to maintaining intimate contact and to achieving a good peripheral seal (Page 3, Lines 7 – 14 of Translation).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muck (US Patent 4,773,832 A) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) and further in view of Horn (US Patent 5,074,757 A).
In Re Claim 9, Muck and Herklotz disclose all the limitations of Claim 8, and the thermoplastic layer (42) of Muck is structured to be in contact with the working fluid in the pumping chamber (18) during operation of the diaphragm pump, and Muck discloses three layers (40, 42, 44) where layer (42) is disposed exteriorly to the other two layers (40, 44), but the layers (40) and (44) are not of equal thickness (the middle one 44 appears to be slightly thicker)
However, Horn further discloses two or more unbonded non-planar diaphragm layers (19, 20) comprise two non- planar layers of equal thickness (each of layers 18, 19, 20 can have more than one diaphragm ply) (although the specification does not explicitly state that the layers are of equal thickness, MPEP 2125 states that 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; Figure 8 shows that the layers are of equal thickness) (Column 5, Lines 29 — 36; Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to make all three layers of Muck to be of equal thickness as taught by Horn because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 10 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (PG Pub US 20010050040 A1) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) and further in view of Acker (US Patent US 3354831 A).
In Re Claim 10, Shimizu and Herklotz disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not disclose a composite construction including a reinforcement and a matrix material.
However, Acker discloses at least one (116’) of the two or more non-planar layers (116’, 119, 117’) is a composite construction including a reinforcement fabric and a matrix material (rubber or neoprene)(paragraph [0008] of applicant’s spec. says that reinforcement is provided by a fabric. The phrase “matrix material’ is for material that impregnates the fabric to form the final product and is referred to as the matrix in paragraph [0087] of applicant's spec. Therefore the disclosed fabric of Acker reads on the claimed reinforcement fabric and the neoprene disclosed by Acker reads on the claimed matrix material) (Column 5, Lines 2 — 8; Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form at least one of the layers of the split-diaphragm of Shimizu / Herklotz from a composite construction including a reinforcement fabric and a matrix material as taught by Acker because 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 (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
In Re Claims 11 and 12, Shimizu and Herklotz disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not explicitly disclose that one layer carries a higher load than the other layer, and one layer is stiffer than the other layer.
However, Acker discloses that the two or more unbounded non-planar diaphragm layers (116’, 119, 117’) comprise:
a first non-planar layer (117’) structured to be in contact with the working fluid in the pumping chamber (98) during the operation of the diaphragm pump (10)(Column 4, Line 75 — Column 5, Line 2; Figures 1, 4); and
a second non-planar layer (119) is disposed interiorly of the first non-planar layer (117’), so that the first non-planar layer (117’) is adjacent the pumping chamber (98) (Column 7, Lines 34 — 40; Figure 4), wherein the second non-planar layer (119) is structured to carry a load associated with a differential pressure formed across the split- layer diaphragm (116’, 119, 117’) during operation of the diaphragm pump (10) that is higher than a load carried by the first non-planar layer (117’)(Column 7, Lines 34 — 40; Figure 4); and
the second non-planar layer (119) has a higher stiffness than the first non-planar layer (117’)(Column 7, Lines 34 – 40; Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form the second non-planar layer of Shimizu / Herklotz to be stiffer than the first non-planar layer such that one layer carries a higher load than the other layer as taught by Acker because 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 (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muck (US Patent 4,773,832 A) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) and further in view of Bobbitt (US Patent 5,894,784 A) and as evidenced by Iwata (US Patent 6,168,397 B1).
In Re Claim 13, Muck and Herklotz disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose a washer pad.
However, Bobbitt discloses a washer pad (51) disposed between a diaphragm (10) and the back washer (52), a fluid washer (41), the washer pad (51) being structured to resist wear caused by relative movement of a back layer of the diaphragm (10) and the back washer (51)(Column 3, Lines 24 — 28 and 49 — 52; Figure 2). The washer pad (51) resists wear because it is made of rubber (Column 3, Lines 40 — 44) which is a wear resistant material as evidenced by lwata in Column 3, Lines 46 — 48.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate a fluid washer, and a washer pad as taught by Bobbitt between the back washer and the back layer of the split-diaphragm of Muck / Herklotz for the purpose of reducing localized stresses on the diaphragm thus reducing wear and leading to longer diaphragm life (Column 3, Lines 45 — 53 of Bobbitt).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (PG Pub US 20010050040 A1) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) in view of Loeffler (US Patent US 5707217 A).
In Re Claim 14, Shimizu and Herklotz disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and they disclose a first split-layer diaphragm and a first pumping assembly, but they do not disclose a second/third split-layer diaphragm disposed within a second/third pumping assembly.
However, Loeffler discloses a diaphragm pump (Figure 1) comprising:
an inlet (connected to an unpressurized reservoir) structured to receive a fluid, an outlet (54) structured to convey a fluid discharged by the diaphragm pump (Figure 1), a pumping assembly (85, 37, 45, 47) disposed between the inlet (connected to an unpressurized reservoir) and the outlet (54)(Column 4, Lines 56 — 67; Figure 1);
and a diaphragm (82, there are three other options: 33, 42, 43) disposed within the pumping assembly (35, 37, 45, 47), wherein the diaphragm (32, 33, 42, 43) is to flex in an intake direction (when diaphragm 43 moves up in Figure 3) to draw a working fluid into a pumping chamber (35) defined by the diaphragm (32) within the pumping assembly (85, 37, 45, 47), and to flex in a discharge direction (when diaphragm 43 moves down in Figure 3) to expel the working fluid from the pumping chamber (35)(Column 4, Lines 56 — 60; Figure 1);
the diaphragm (82, there are three other options: 33, 42, 43) is a first diaphragm (32), the pumping assembly (35, 37, 45, 47) is a first pumping assembly (35) and the diaphragm pump further comprises: a second diaphragm (33) disposed with a second pumping assembly (37); and a third diaphragm (42) disposed with a third pumping assembly (45)(Column 4, Lines 14 — 37; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the first pumping assembly of Shimizu / Herklotz to incorporate an additional second and third pumping assembly as taught by Loeffler because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art - MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (PG Pub US 20010050040 A1) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) and further in view of Horn (US Patent 5,074,757 A).
In Re Claim 18, Shimizu and Herklotz disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, but they do not disclose a third non-planar layer.
However, Figure 2 of Horn discloses a first non-planar layer (20), a second non-planar layer (19) and a third non-planar layer (18), layer (18) is structured to be in contact with the working fluid in pump chamber (15) in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the diaphragm of Shimizu / Herklotz to incorporate a third-non planar layer as taught by Horn because it has been held that duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art – MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (PG Pub US 20010050040 A1) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) and further in view of Lefebvre (French Patent FR 2934332 A1, original document and Machine Translation provide in parent application # 17156766 as acknowledged by Applicant’s IDS).
In Re Claim 16, Shimizu and Herklotz disclose a first sealing feature, but the sealing feature does not protrude as claimed.
However, Lefebvre discloses a first non-planar layer (19), a second non-planar layer (25a or 25b), a first sealing feature (37) protruding from the exterior section of the first non-planar layer and configured to press into the exterior section of the second non-planar layer (25a or 25b)(Page 3, Lines 7 – 14 of Translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the first non-planar layer of the diaphragm of Shimizu / Herklotz to incorporate a protrusion at the exterior section (where the layers are clamped) as taught by Lefebvre because it is only a matter of substituting one sealing feature with another sealing feature, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (PG Pub US 20010050040 A1) in view of Herklotz (US Patent 6,484,383 B1) and further in view of Acker (US Patent 3,354,831 A).
In Re Claim 19, Shimizu and Herklotz disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, but they do not disclose the material and stiffness of the layers as claimed.
However, Acker discloses that the first non-planar layer (117’) is formed of polytetrafluorethylene and is structured to be in contact with a working fluid being pumped through the diaphragm pump (10)(Column 4, Line 74 — Column 5 Line 8; Figures 1, 4); and the second non-planar layer (119) is disposed interiorly of the first non-planar layer (117’), so that the first non-planar layer (117’) is adjacent the working fluid (Column 7, Lines 34 — 40; Figure 4), the second non-planar layer (119) having a higher stiffness than the first non-planar layer (117’) so that the second non-planar layer (119) carries a load associated with a differential pressure formed across the diaphragm (116’, 119, 117’) during operation of the diaphragm pump (10) that is higher than a load carried by the first non-planar layer (117’)(Column 7, Lines 37 — 41; Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the first and second non-planar layers of the diaphragm of Shimizu / Herklotz such that the first non-planar layer is formed of polytetrafluorethylene and the second non-planar layer having a higher stiffness than the first non-planar layer as taught by Acker 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 (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant’s Response that “Herklotz, teaches a membrane bonding technique that fully joins two membranes together so that there is no space between the two membranes, let alone a fixed volume of closed space”.
Examiner’s Response: In Applicant’s invention, a sealed fixed volume of a closed space is created between two membranes by either 1) introducing incompressible fluid between the layers, OR 2) introducing/creating a vacuum between the layers as stated in paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s Specification. When applicant introduces vacuum between the layers, the layers touch each other (as shown in all of applicant’s drawings), just like the references used in this office action. As such, an edge-sealed region between touching layers is within the scope of applicant’s “volume”/”space” (see paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s Specification). Herklotz teaches creating a vacuum between the layers which is also one of the ways that applicant creates a sealed fixed volume between the layers. Note that there is a non-zero volume between the layers of Herklotz (Figures 1A-1C) before the air is extracted from the volume to create the vacuum (Figure 1D). Once the vacuum is created in Herklotz, the edges of the layers are sealed (see Abstract), the edge sealing and the layers collectively define the boundary of the claimed “volume”/”space”.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights