DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed June 4, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 19, line 3: “so that that” should read --so that
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim limitations, as discussed in the last office action, are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: “a closure assembly” in claims 1 and 13; “a retaining assembly” in claims 3 and 17; “one or more installation elements” in claim 6; and “one or more flexible installation elements” in claim 7.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barnhouse et al. (US 2023/0193896 – herein after Barnhouse).
In reference to claim 1, Barnhouse discloses a method of closing an externally open segment (segment with bore 60 is seen open externally in view of fig. 2) of a fluid end casing (18, see fig. 3) of a fluid end (14, see fig. 1) of a reciprocating pump (10, see fig. 1) with a closure assembly (26, see fig. 7/8), the externally open segment extending from a pressure chamber (for instance in view of fig. 6: “pressure chamber” = chamber/space within opening/bore 60 in which closure assembly 26 is received; this space constitutes a pressure chamber since it is within the reciprocating pump that pressurizes fluid) of the fluid end to an external surface (wall surface) of the fluid end casing (18), and the method comprising:
inserting a non-circular closure element (93, see fig. 14 and ¶55) through the externally open segment into the pressure chamber of the fluid end casing in a first direction (in → direction) while the non-circular closure element is disposed in a first orientation (orientation of the closure element 93 while in gaps 67; see disclosure in ¶55 and fig. 4);
rotating the non-circular closure element (93) to a second orientation (orientation of the closure element 93 while passing through gaps 63) that is angularly offset from the first orientation with respect to at least one axis of rotation (rotation being for example 90 degrees or quarter turn so that element 93 passes through gaps 63; see disclosure in ¶55 and figs. 3-5; rotation being about a horizontal axis of the bore 60) to form a space between a first surface of the non-circular closure element (left surface of 93) and a second surface (right surface of tabs 61a, 61b formed on the fluid end casing; see figs. 4-5) of the fluid end casing (12), the second surface facing the pressure chamber (as evident from figs. 3 and 5); and
moving the non-circular closure element within the externally open segment of the fluid end casing in a second direction (in ← direction) that is opposite the first direction (→ direction) while the non-circular closure element is in the second orientation to cause the non-circular closure element to close the space and engage the first surface of the non-circular closure element with the second surface of the fluid end casing see ¶42 and figs. 3-6).
In reference to claim 3, Barnhouse discloses the method, further comprising: coupling an exterior surface (left surface in view of fig. 7) of the non-circular closure element (93) to a retaining assembly (142+96, see fig. 14 or 92, see fig. 8) to secure the non-circular closure element (93) within the externally open segment.
In reference to claim 4, Barnhouse discloses the method, wherein the retaining assembly (if interpreted to be 92 in fig. 8) includes a retaining element (92) and the method further comprises:
installing a seal (cap 94 is viewed as a seal) on the non-circular closure element (93); and
coupling the exterior surface (left surface) of the non-circular closure element (93) to the retaining element (92) to secure the seal (94) on the non-circular closure element (93).
In reference to claim 5, Barnhouse discloses the method, wherein the retaining assembly (if interpreted to be 142+96+94+92 in view of figs. 8-14) includes a retaining element (142, see fig. 14) and the method further comprises: coupling the exterior surface (left surface) of the non-circular closure element (93) to the retaining element (142) prior to insertion of the non-circular closure element (93) into the externally open segment (see ¶50).
In reference to claim 6, Barnhouse discloses the method, wherein one or more installation elements (96) are connected to the non-circular closure element (93) and accessible from an exterior of the externally open segment of the fluid end casing (as evident from fig. 7) so that rotation of the non-circular closure element, movement of the non-circular closure element within the externally open segment, or both, are at least partially effectuated (“effectuate” = put into operation or produce a result or make something happen) via the one or more installation elements (see ¶55: “Once all three elements, plug 93, mid-cap 94, and cover cap 92 are positioned in the final position, the fastener 96 is tightened to clamp the retainer nut assembly 26 onto the inboard locking tabs 61a, 61b and secured within the cavity 60”; thus, asserted installation element 96 produces a result of securing asserted non-circular closure element 93).
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.
Claims 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa et al. (US 4,861,241 – herein after Gamboa) in view of Smith, Jason D (US 2016/0108910 – herein after Smith).
In reference to claim 17, Gamboa teaches a closure assembly (22+18’+18+16, see fig. 2) for a fluid end (10, see fig. 1) of a reciprocating pump (8, see fig. 1), at least a portion of the closure assembly being installable within a segment (horizontal bore segment that receives closure element 22, see fig. 2) of a casing (12) of the fluid end to substantially close the segment (to substantially close the right end of the segment), the segment extending from a pressure chamber (chamber/space within opening/bore in which 22 is received; this space constitutes a pressure chamber since it is within the reciprocating pump that pressurizes fluid) to an external surface (labeled “e.s.” in fig. A below) of the casing (12), and the closure assembly comprising:
a closure element (22) that extends from an interior surface (surface corresponding to left face of 22 in view of fig. 2) to an exterior surface (surface corresponding to right face of 22 in view of fig. 2), wherein the closure element (22) comprises a seating section (labeled “s.s.” in fig. A below) and a closure section (section/portion defining lip 31, see fig. 3; also, labeled “c.s.” in fig. A below), the seating section extends radially beyond the closure section (as evident from fig. A above and fig. 3) and is configured to engage a surface (surface in circled region) of the casing (12) facing the pressure chamber such that the closure section (“c.s.” or 31) extends along (in → direction, see fig. 3) a sealing section (labeled “s.sc” in fig. A below) of the segment, the sealing section extending from the surface (in circled region) away (in → direction) from the pressure chamber toward the external surface (“e.s.”); and
a retaining assembly (18’+18+16) that is coupleable to the exterior surface (right surface) of the closure element (22) at the segment (as evident from fig. 2: the retaining assembly is coupleable to the closure element at the right end of the segment), wherein the retaining assembly comprises a portion (16) extending radially beyond the segment to couple to the external surface (“e.s.”) of the casing at the segment (as evident from fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
906
1716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 2 of Gamboa to show claim interpretation.
Gamboa remains silent on the closure assembly, wherein at least the closure section has a non-circular cross- sectional shape.
However, Smith teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a similar segment (segment defining port 238) with a non-circular closure element (202; 202 is considered to be non-circular because of presence of machined flats 234; see fig. 4 and ¶32; also see ¶30: “As shown in FIG. 4 and described above, cover 202 includes a distal end 208 and a proximal end 210. Distal or insertion end 208 of cover 202 is preferably sized and shaped to be sealingly engaged within an access port of an industrial machine (e.g., a mud pump). While distal and proximal ends 208, 210 of cover 202 are shown as generally circular, it should be understood by those having ordinary skill that any shape or profile of access port may be accommodated using a similar or correspondingly shaped cover 202”).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “non-circular” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the closure element and wall portion of the bore surrounding it in Gamboa’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Gamboa’s pump to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape for the closure element.
In reference to claim 18, Gamboa, as modified, teaches the closure assembly, wherein the retaining assembly (18’+18+16) includes a retaining element (18’), an extended coupler (18), and a crossbar (tool bar 76, see col. 5, line 20), wherein an upstream end (left end in view of fig. 2) of the extended coupler (18) is configured to be coupled to the retaining element (18’) and a downstream end (right end in view of fig. 2) of the extended coupler (18) is configured to be secured to the crossbar (76), which is configured to extend radially beyond the segment.
In reference to claim 19, Gamboa, as modified, teaches the method, wherein the retaining assembly (18’+18+16) comprises one or more installation elements (handle in 18’, see fig. 2) extending away (in → direction) from an exterior surface (right surface of rectangular body portion, see fig. 2) of the retaining element (18’) so that the one or more installation elements are accessible from the external surface of the casing (12) of the fluid end when the closure element (22) is installed within the segment.
In reference to claim 20, Gamboa, as modified, teaches the method, wherein the retaining assembly (18’+18+16) includes a retainer (16) extending radially beyond the segment such that the retainer is configured to be disposed against the external surface (“e.s.” in fig. A above) of the casing (12) of the fluid end (10), and the retainer defines a seat (threaded hole) on which the closure element, an additional portion (portion of 18) of the retaining assembly, or both the closure element and the additional portion of the retaining assembly may sit.
Claims 1 – 6, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Fred (US 2014/0260954 – herein after Young) in view of Smith, Jason D (US 2016/0108910 – herein after Smith).
In reference to claim 1, Young teaches a method of closing an externally open segment (horizontal bore segment that receives element 47, see fig. 22) of a fluid end casing (housing) of a fluid end (seen in fig. 22) of a reciprocating pump (seen in fig. 22) with a closure assembly (25b+47+53, see fig. 22; note in view of disclosure in ¶50: 25b may be a separate component), the externally open segment extending from a pressure chamber (chamber/space within opening/bore in which the closure assembly is received; this space constitutes a pressure chamber since it is within the reciprocating pump that pressurizes fluid) of the fluid end to an external surface (labeled “e.s.” in fig. B below) of the fluid end casing, and the method comprising:
inserting (from left opening of the segment in view of fig. 22) a closure element (25b+47) through the externally open segment into the pressure chamber of the fluid end casing in a first direction (in → direction) while the closure element is disposed in a first orientation (orientation of the closure element corresponding to its flange orientation in a horizontal direction);
rotating the closure element to a second orientation (orientation of the closure element corresponding its flange in a vertical direction) that is angularly offset from the first orientation with respect to at least one axis of rotation to form a space between a first surface of the closure element (left surface of 25b) and a second surface (see fig. B below) of the fluid end casing (12), the second surface facing the pressure chamber (as evident from fig. B below); and
moving the closure element within the externally open segment of the fluid end casing in a second direction (in ← direction) that is opposite the first direction (→ direction) while the closure element is in the second orientation to cause the closure element to close the space and engage the first surface of the closure element with the second surface of the fluid end casing.
PNG
media_image2.png
960
986
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 22 of Young to show claim interpretation.
Young remains silent on the closure element being “non-circular”.
However, Smith teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a similar segment (segment defining port 238) with a non-circular closure element (202; 202 is considered to be non-circular because of presence of machined flats 234; see fig. 4 and ¶32; also see ¶30: “As shown in FIG. 4 and described above, cover 202 includes a distal end 208 and a proximal end 210. Distal or insertion end 208 of cover 202 is preferably sized and shaped to be sealingly engaged within an access port of an industrial machine (e.g., a mud pump). While distal and proximal ends 208, 210 of cover 202 are shown as generally circular, it should be understood by those having ordinary skill that any shape or profile of access port may be accommodated using a similar or correspondingly shaped cover 202”).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “non-circular” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the closure element and wall portion of the bore surrounding it in Young’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Young’s pump to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape for the closure element.
In reference to claim 2, Young, as modified, teaches the method, wherein the rotating occurs in the pressure chamber of the fluid end and involves a first rotation of approximately ninety degrees about a first axis of rotation and a second rotation of approximately ninety degrees about a second axis of rotation (the modified non-circular closure element of Young can be rotated in same claimed manner as shown for closure element 402 by applicant in fig. 18C-18D of the instant application).
In reference to claim 3, Young, as modified, teaches the method, further comprising: coupling an exterior surface (surface corresponding to left face of 47 in view of Young’s fig. 22) of the non-circular closure element (25b+47) to a retaining assembly (53+ unlabeled component (shown as “C” in fig. B above) – herein after 53+C) to secure the non-circular closure element within the externally open segment.
In reference to claim 4, Young, as modified, teaches the method, wherein the retaining assembly (53+C) includes a retaining element (53) and the method further comprises:
installing a seal (see fig. B above) on the non-circular closure element (25b+47); and
coupling the exterior surface (left surface of component 25b) of the non-circular closure element (25b+47) to the retaining element (53) to secure the seal on the non-circular closure element (25b+47).
In reference to claim 5, Young, as modified, teaches the method, wherein the retaining assembly (53+C) includes a retaining element (C) and the method further comprises: coupling the exterior surface (left surface of component 25b) of the non-circular closure element (25b+47) to the retaining element (C) prior to insertion of the non-circular closure element (25b+47) into the externally open segment.
In reference to claim 6, Young, as modified, teaches the method, wherein one or more installation elements (retainer nut 53, see fig. 22) are connected to the non-circular closure element (25b+47) and accessible from an exterior (on left side) of the externally open segment of the fluid end casing so that rotation of the non-circular closure element, movement of the non-circular closure element within the externally open segment, or both, are at least partially effectuated (“effectuate” = put into operation or produce a result or make something happen) via the one or more installation elements (53).
In reference to claim 12, Young, as modified, teaches the method, further comprising: capturing a seal (see fig. B above), with or without a seal carrier, between the retaining element (C) and the non-circular closure element (47+25b) [“seal” is between left end of component C and right end of component 47].
In reference to claim 13, Young teaches a method of closing an externally open segment (horizontal bore segment that receives element 47, see fig. 22) of a fluid end casing (housing) of a fluid end (seen in fig. 22) of a reciprocating pump (seen in fig. 22) with a closure assembly (25b+47+53, see fig. 22; note in view of disclosure in ¶50: 25b may be a separate component), the externally open segment extending from a pressure chamber (chamber/space within opening/bore in which the closure assembly is received; this space constitutes a pressure chamber since it is within the reciprocating pump that pressurizes fluid) of the fluid end to an external surface (labeled “e.s.” in fig. B above) of the fluid end casing, and the method comprising:
coupling a retaining element (labeled “C” in fig. B above) to a closure element (25b+47);
inserting (from left opening of the segment in view of fig. 22) the closure element (25b+47), with the retaining element (C), through the externally open segment into the pressure chamber of the fluid end casing in a first direction (in → direction) while the closure element is disposed in a first orientation (orientation of the closure element corresponding to its flange orientation in a horizontal direction);
rotating the closure element to a second orientation (orientation of the closure element corresponding its flange in a vertical direction) to form a space between a first surface of the closure element (left surface of 25b) and a second surface (see fig. B above) of the fluid end casing, the second surface facing the pressure chamber (as evident from fig. B above); and
moving the closure element within the externally open segment of the fluid end casing in a second direction (in ← direction) that is opposite the first direction (→ direction) while the closure element is in the second orientation that is opposite the first direction while the closure element is in the second direction to close the space and engage the first surface of the closure element with the second surface of the fluid end casing; and
securing the closure element (25b+47) within the externally open segment by way of the retaining element (C).
Young remains silent on the closure element being “non-circular”.
However, Smith teaches a similar fluid end (see figs. 3A-7) of a reciprocating pump (see ¶34) comprising: a similar segment (segment defining port 238) with a non-circular closure element (202; 202 is considered to be non-circular because of presence of machined flats 234; see fig. 4 and ¶32; also see ¶30: “As shown in FIG. 4 and described above, cover 202 includes a distal end 208 and a proximal end 210. Distal or insertion end 208 of cover 202 is preferably sized and shaped to be sealingly engaged within an access port of an industrial machine (e.g., a mud pump). While distal and proximal ends 208, 210 of cover 202 are shown as generally circular, it should be understood by those having ordinary skill that any shape or profile of access port may be accommodated using a similar or correspondingly shaped cover 202”).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “non-circular” shape (for instance, see ¶5-¶8 of filed specification, where applicant use phrase such as “may” while describing advantages related to non-circular/ovular shape), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the closure element and wall portion of the bore surrounding it in Young’s fluid end for a non-circular shape as taught by Smith as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the components (as recognized by Smith in ¶30). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Young’s pump to perform equally well with claimed non-circular shape for the closure element.
In reference to claim 16, Young, as modified, teaches the method, comprising:
inserting the non-circular closure element into the externally open segment of the fluid end casing while a major axis of the non-circular closure element extends at a first angle relative to the first direction in the first orientation; and
rotating the non-circular closure element such that the major axis of the non-circular closure element extends at a second angle, greater than the first angle, relative to the first direction in the second orientation.
With respect to the claimed above claimed method step for the non-circular closure element, the newly modified method of Young as above does not explicitly teach the claimed step of “inserting and rotating” the non-circular closure element; however, the modified method of Young does teach all the structural limitations of the non-circular closure element (“non-circular” inherently having major axis). Therefore, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the process or method claimed, then the process or method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02(I).
Claims 8, 9, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Smith and Gamboa et al. (US 4,861,241 – herein after Gamboa).
Young, as modified, remains silent on the method having claimed features of claims 8, 9, 11, 14 and 15.
However, Gamboa teaches the method:
wherein the retaining assembly (18’+18+16) includes an extended coupler (18, see fig. 2) and a crossbar (tool bar 76, see col. 5, line 20), the method further comprises:
coupling an upstream end (left end in view of fig. 2) of the extended coupler (18) to the retaining element (18’); and
securing (when installing/securing component 18) a downstream end (right end in view of fig. 2) of the extended coupler (18) in the crossbar (76) spanning the externally open segment proximate an exterior end (right end) of the externally open segment (as evident from fig. 2) such that moving the closure element (22) to engage the first surface (left surface of flange) of the closure element (22) with the second surface (surface that flange abuts to) of the fluid end casing (12) compresses the closure element against the second surface of the fluid end casing and the retaining assembly (18’+18+16) against the external surface (“e.s.”, see fig. A above) of the fluid end casing (12), as in claim 8;
wherein the extended coupler (18) comprises a collar [“collar” = ring around something; in mechanical context, collar is considered to be a cylindrical part that first around something; thus “16” is considered to be a collar] that limits a depth of the extended coupler (18) that can be extended into the retaining element (18’) to limit an amount of torque that can be applied to the closure element (22) when the extended coupler (18) is coupled to the retaining element (18’), as in claim 9;
wherein securement of the downstream end (right end) of the extended coupler (18) in the crossbar (76) comprises:
securing an annular ring (16, see fig. 2) to an exterior of the fluid end casing (12); and
seating the crossbar (76) against the annular ring (16), as in claim 11;
wherein securement of the closure element (22) comprises:
coupling an upstream end (left end in view of fig. 2) of an extended coupler (18) to the retaining element (18’); and
securing (when installing/securing component 18) a downstream end (right end in view of fig. 2) of the extended coupler (18) in a crossbar (tool bar 76, see col. 5, line 20) spanning the externally open segment proximate an exterior end (right end) of the externally open segment (as evident from fig. 2), as in claim 14;
wherein the securement of the closure element (22) comprises:
securing an annular ring (16, see fig. 2) to the external surface (“e.s.”, see fig. A above) of the fluid end casing (12); and
seating the crossbar (76) against the annular ring (16), as in claim 15.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retaining assembly of Young for the retaining assembly that comprises of an extended coupler, crossbar, retaining element, collar/annular ring as taught by Gamboa in the modified method of Young for the purpose of substituting one known retaining assembly (of Young) for another (of Gamboa) in order to obtain the predictable result of securing and maitaining the closure element in an assembled relationship during operation of the pump. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Smith and Gamboa and further in view of Peer, Richard (US 11,859,643 – herein after Peer).
Young, as modified, remains silent on the method, wherein the extended coupler comprises extensions configured to extend external to the externally open segment and beyond the crossbar and limit an amount of torque that can be applied to the non-circular closure element when the extended coupler is coupled to the retaining element.
However, Peer teaches the method, wherein the extended coupler (70, see fig. 5) comprises extensions (80a-80d, see fig. 6) configured to extend external to the externally open segment (segment seen in fig. 5) and beyond the crossbar (82, see fig. 6) and limit an amount of torque that can be applied to the closure element (68, see fig. 5) when the extended coupler (70) is coupled to the retaining element (104, see fig. 5) [the asserted extensions are key part of how the entire retainer nut assembly locks together and applies pressure to the plug. Applying excessive torque can stress these extensions beyond their limit, compromising the integrity of the whole assembly and its ability to effectively secure the plug; thus, these extensions (indirectly or directly in view of their structure/shape) limit an amount of torque that can be applied to the closure element].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the extended coupler in Gamboa in the modified method of Young for provision of extensions as taught by Peer for enabling easier access via the tool and the application of a sufficient amount of torque to rotate and secure the component(s) in place using the tool, as recognized by Peer (see col. 5, lines 44-50 and lines 62-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, as previously stated in the last office action, is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The arguments, filed 08/28/2025, with respect to 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 over Barnhouse have been fully considered but they are moot. The amendment to independent claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the prior art of Barnhouse have been re-evaluated and re-applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102, in view of new interpretation for phrase “pressure chamber”.
Furthermore, the arguments, filed 08/28/2025, with respect to independent claims have been considered but are moot. The amendment to the independent claims changed the scope of the claim. As a result, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly found references of Young and Gamboa.
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746