DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 13, 15 – 17, 19 and 23 – 25 are pending in the application with claims 19 and 23 – 25 being withdrawn and claims 14, 18, 20 – 22, 26 and 27 being cancelled. The amendment to the claims has overcome some of the drawing objections, all of the claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed December 11, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Fig. 6 shows “115 215” for filter. It is understood that applicant intends to show zoomed-in view for either a filter 115 (numeral used for filter in an embodiment of the pump shown in fig. 2) or filter 215 (numeral used for filter in an embodiment of the pump shown in fig. 3). It is suggested to amend “115 215” as --115/215/315--, wherein addition of 315 is in view of numeral used for filter in an embodiment of the pump shown in fig. 4.
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 Objections
Claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11: “a suspended polymer liquid” should read --the suspended polymer liquid--.
Claims 2 – 13 and 15 – 17 are objected to for being dependent on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Communications Idc-online (“Single and Double Reciprocating Pumps” – herein after Idc).
In reference to claim 1, Idc discloses a pump apparatus (see page 5 of provided copy) comprising a pump head (for instance, head corresponding to following claimed features), the pump head comprising (see fig. A below)
a cylinder having a piston disposed therein, wherein the piston separates the cylinder into a first volume (labeled “S1”) and a second volume (labeled “S2”);
a rod (labeled “rod”) connected to the piston and to a motor (see page 1, disclosure under 1st paragraph of “2. The piston”) through a packing seal (see fig. A below: shown as “gland & packing”);
the rod and packing seal in fluid communication with the second volume (inherent feature: the rod and packing seal is positioned at the terminal end of the second volume to seal the cylinder around the moving shaft/rod. Because the second volume holds the pumped fluid on that side of the cylinder, and because the rod and packing seal are physically exposed to and located within the boundary of this chamber, they are inherently in fluid communication with the fluid contained inside the second volume);
the first volume configured to pump a suspended polymer liquid (the first volume is capable of pumping the claimed liquid);
a suspended polymer liquid inlet (labeled “I1”) in fluid communication with the first volume (S1) of the cylinder;
a first inlet valve (labeled “V1”) in the suspended polymer liquid inlet and upstream from the first volume (S1) capable of controlling the flow of the suspended polymer liquid into the first volume;
a suspended polymer liquid outlet (labeled “O1”) in fluid communication with the first volume of the cylinder;
a first outlet valve (labeled “V3”) in the suspended polymer liquid outlet capable of controlling the flow of the suspended polymer liquid;
the second volume configured to pump a non-deposit-forming liquid (the second volume is capable of pumping the claimed liquid);
a non-deposit-forming liquid inlet (labeled “I2”) in fluid communication with the second volume (S2) of the cylinder;
a second inlet valve (labeled “V2”) in the non-deposit-forming liquid inlet and upstream from the second volume (S2) capable of controlling the flow of the non-deposit-forming liquid into the second volume;
a non-deposit-forming liquid outlet (labeled “O2”) in fluid communication with the second volume of the cylinder;
a second outlet valve (labeled “V4”) in the non-deposit-forming liquid outlet capable of controlling the flow of the non-deposit-forming liquid;
wherein the non-deposit-forming liquid outlet (“O2”) is in fluid communication with the non-deposit-forming liquid inlet (70) [note: with respect to limitations “a suspended polymer liquid inlet”, “a suspended polymer liquid outlet”, “a suspended polymer liquid”, “a non-deposit-forming liquid inlet”, “a non-deposit-forming liquid outlet”, “a non-deposit-forming liquid”: the phrases “suspended polymer” or “suspended polymer liquid” and “non-deposit-forming” or “non-deposit forming liquid” implies an intended use of the pump apparatus to pump specific fluids and thus, does not lend any patentable weight to the pump apparatus that is being claimed (see MPEP 2114 II].
PNG
media_image1.png
1094
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. on page 5 of Idc to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 4, Idc discloses the pump apparatus, wherein the pump apparatus further comprises a suspended polymer liquid vessel in fluid communication with the suspended polymer liquid inlet (“I1”; of Idc) and a non-deposit-forming liquid vessel (12; see Hussey’s fig. 2) in fluid communication with the non-deposit-forming liquid inlet (“I2”; of Idc) (it is inherent that there will be holding vessels in fluid communication with respective inlets for storing liquids used in the pump).
In reference to claim 6, Idc discloses the pump apparatus, wherein the packing seal (see fig. A above: shown as “gland & packing”) surrounding the rod and connects to the cylinder in the second volume (“S2”).
In reference to claim 12, Idc discloses the pump apparatus, wherein the non-deposit-forming liquid comprises an emulsion of polydimethylsiloxane oil (the type of liquid used does not lend any patentable weight to the pump apparatus that is being claimed).
In reference to claim 13, Idc discloses the pump apparatus, wherein the non-deposit-forming liquid comprises water, an alcohol, a glycol, a polyglycol, glycerin, a high molecular weight polyelectrolyte in water, or a combination thereof (the type of liquid used does not lend any patentable weight to the pump apparatus that is being claimed).
In reference to claim 15, Idc discloses the pump apparatus, wherein the non-deposit-forming liquid comprises a solution of natural or modified polysaccharide in water (the type of liquid used does not lend any patentable weight to the pump apparatus that is being claimed).
In reference to claim 16, Idc discloses the pump apparatus, wherein the non-deposit-forming liquid comprises a lipophilic compound with lubricating properties selected from a hydrocarbon oil, a fatty acid, a fatty ester, a fatty amide, a fatty alcohol, or a combination thereof (the type of liquid used does not lend any patentable weight to the pump apparatus that is being claimed).
In reference to claim 17, Idc discloses the pump apparatus, wherein the non-deposit-forming liquid comprises polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polyglycerin, polybutylene glycol, a glycol copolymer, a glycol terpolymer, or a combination thereof (the type of liquid used does not lend any patentable weight to the pump apparatus that is being claimed).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idc in view of Yajima, Takeo (US 2022/0331833 – herein after Yajima).
Idc does not teach the pump apparatus having a suspended polymer liquid “filter” arranged in the suspended polymer liquid outlet (labelled “O1” in fig. A above) downstream from the first outlet valve (labelled “V3” in fig. A above).
However, Yajima teaches a pump apparatus (10, see fig. 1) wherein a filter (15) is arranged in a fluid outlet (12) downstream of a pump (22).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the suspended polymer liquid outlet in the pump apparatus of Idc with a filter as taught by Yajima for the purpose of filtering the discharged liquid from the pump, as recognized by Yajima (see ¶25).
Thus, Idc, as modified, teaches the pump apparatus, wherein the pump head further comprises a suspended polymer liquid filter in the suspended polymer liquid outlet downstream from the first outlet valve (it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to provide an appropriate filter for the type of liquid being processed).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idc in view of Hauser, Oliver (US 2010/0283166 – herein after Hauser).
Idc does not teach the pump apparatus having “a heat exchanger” arranged in the suspended polymer liquid inlet (labelled “I1” in fig. A above) upstream from the first inlet valve (labelled “V1” in fig. A above).
However, Hauser teaches an apparatus, wherein a heat exchanger (2, see fig. 1 and ¶91) is arranged in a polymer liquid inlet (3) upstream from a pump (4/5/6) and downstream from a polymer liquid source (1; container 1 has polymer solution A).
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 suspended polymer liquid inlet in the pump apparatus of Idc for providing a heat exchanger as taught by Hauser for the purpose of providing the temperature-controlled liquid, as recognized by Hauser (see ¶91).
Thus, Idc, as modified, teaches the pump apparatus, wherein the pump head further comprises a heat exchanger (of Hauser) in the suspended polymer liquid inlet (Idc’s inlet “I1”) upstream from the first inlet valve (of Idc; labelled “V1” in fig. A above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idc in view of Crompton, Dean (US 2012/0031440 – herein after Crompton).
Idc teaches the pump apparatus wherein the non-deposit-forming liquid vessel comprises a housing (inherent feature).
Idc remains silent on the pump apparatus wherein the non-deposit-forming liquid vessel comprises a bag filter.
However, Crompton teaches a non-deposit-forming liquid vessel (water supply tank 52, see fig. 1) comprising a bag filter (85, see ¶95).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the non-deposit-liquid vessel in the pump apparatus of Idc with a bag filter as taught by Crompton for the purpose of filtering the liquid prior to entering the vessel, as recognized by Crompton (see ¶78 or ¶95).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idc in view of Perry et al. (WO 2018/064115A1 – herein after Perry).
Idc does not teach the pump apparatus, wherein the pump apparatus further comprises a pressure control device between the second outlet valve and the non-deposit-forming liquid vessel.
However, Perry teaches a pump system (see fig. 1B and page 4, lines 36-40 & page 5, lines 1-15) that involves moving of a first fluid from a first source (subsea liquid source 40) to a first chamber (chamber above piston 30) and then to a desired location (injected into desired item of the subsea equipment or into a subsea flow line; see page 1, lines 21-27: “Additionally, chemical injection can also be used to change chemical and mechanical properties of the process fluids that are injected into the formation, such as foaming characteristics, viscosity, and the like”) and moving of a second fluid from a second source (sea water in a subsea environment in view of fig. 1B and page 6, lines 10-24) to a second chamber (chamber below piston 30) and then back to the second source (20), wherein the pump system further comprises a pressure control device (throttle valve 36 and/or eductor 38) in a return line (39; this line being an outlet fluid line for the second chamber) that is in fluid communication with the second source (see page 6, lines 16-23: “the open system 12 may also include the above-described throttle valve 36, which may be positioned in the bypass line 37. As with the closed system 10, the throttle valve 36 of the open system 12 may be operated so as to control the outlet pressure and flow rate of the motive fluid pump 20, and to maintain the pressure of the pressurized motive fluid 25 leaving the pump outlet 20A at a relatively higher pressure than the pressure at the pump inlet 20B. In certain embodiments, such as when the PD pumps 22A-C are single acting piston pumps, the open system 12 may also include an optional eductor 38 that is adapted to maintain a pressure on the motive fluid streams 25A-C at the outlets of each of the PD pumps 22A-C, as will be further described in conjunction with Figs. 3 A-3D below..”).
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 non-deposit-forming liquid’s outlet/discharge line in the pump apparatus of Idc for provision of a return line with a pressure control device in light of Perry’s teaching for the purpose of controlling the outlet pressure and flow rate of the second fluid (i.e. non-deposit forming liquid in this case) while at the same forming an open system that recirculates the discharged second fluid back to the second fluid’s source, as evident from the above teachings of Perry.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idc in view of Perry and further in view of Smith, Roddie R. (US 5,284,205 – herein after Roddie).
Regarding claim 8,
Idc, as modified, does not teach the pump apparatus, wherein the piston comprises a U-cup seal and a side of the U-cup seal having an open channel or filled channel is in contact with the first volume of the cylinder.
However, Roddie teaches a pump apparatus, wherein the piston (76, see figs. 4-5) comprises a U-cup seal (82) and a side (top side in view of figs. 4-5) of the U-cup seal having an open channel (space in which tongue 86 is held) or filled channel is in contact with the first volume of the cylinder (first volume = space above piston; bore 58 which has pressurized fluid).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the metal-to-metal seal and U-cup seal assembly as taught by Roddie on Idc’s piston of the modified pump apparatus of Idc for the purpose of providing an improved metal to metal piston seal comprising a seal member adapted to provide sealing engagement with a cooperating annular stop at both low and high pressures, as recognized by Roddie (see col. 1, lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 9,
Idc, as modified, teaches the pump apparatus, wherein the pressure control device (of Perry) is adjustable (as discussed above in claim 7) to allow the pressure within pump chamber (within sub chamber “S2” of a pump chamber formed of “S1+S2”, see fig. A above) that is integral with the packing seal (see fig. A above: shown as “gland & packing”; of Idc) to be varied and adjust the leakage rate of the non-deposit-forming liquid around the U-cup seal (82; of Roddie) (“adjusting the leakage rate of the non-deposit-forming liquid around the U-cup seal” would naturally flow from adjusting the pressure in the non-deposit-forming liquid’s discharge line using the pressure control device of Perry).
Regarding claim 10,
Idc, as modified, teaches the pump apparatus, wherein the piston contains metal or inorganic seals (metal to metal seal 10; see figs. 3-4 of Roddie) in front of (top of) the U-Cup seal (82; of Roddie) that directly contact the suspended polymer liquid (“direct contact” = leaked suspended polymer liquid “directly contacts” the open channel of the U-cup seal).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idc in view of Yajima and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2008/0073298 – herein after Smith).
Idc, as modified, does not teach the pump apparatus with claimed structure of the filter, i.e. “wherein the suspended polymer liquid filter has an element comprising a wire screen wrapped around a cylindrical support to remove deposits from the suspended polymer liquid”.
However, Smith teaches a filter (see fig. 1) which has an element comprising a wire screen (see ¶18: “As is known in the art, a screen can be made by winding a wedge wire 40, an extruded, triangular section wire, around a cage of parallel ribs 41”) wrapped around a cylindrical support (41) to remove deposits from the liquid.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute Yajima’s filter in the modified pump apparatus of Idc for the filter has an element comprising a wire screen wrapped around a cylindrical support as taught by Smith in order to obtain the predictable result of removing deposits from the liquid (in this case, the suspended polymer liquid). KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive.
With respect to arguments on pages 9-11: The, physical, structural arrangement of Idc features a cylinder divided by a piston into a first volume (S1; see fig. A above) and a second volume (S2; see fig. A above), wherein the second volume is physically integral with the packing seal (“gland & packing”) and surrounds the piston rod. The physical rod is shown passing directly through the second volume of the cylinder to connect to the piston. Furthermore, the packing seal is positioned at the terminal end of the second volume to seal the cylinder around the moving shaft/rod. Because the second volume holds the pumped fluid on that side of the cylinder, and because the rod and packing seal are physically exposed to and located within the boundary of this chamber, they are inherently in fluid communication with the fluid contained inside the second volume. As further discussed in the office action, the recitations of a “suspended polymer liquid” in the first volume and a “non-deposit-forming liquid” in the second volume define the environmental fluids intended to be used within the pump apparatus. It is well established that the recitation of an intended use or the characteristics of fluids being processes does not lend patentable weight to an apparatus claim is the prior art structure is entirely capable of receiving and performing the identical mechanical functions (see MPEP 2114 II). Because the physical structure of Idc matches the claimed layout, it meets every structural limitation recited. Applicant’s citation of In re Schreiber actually supports the Examiner’s position. The structural configuration of the pump apparatus disclosed in Idc is physically identical to the apparatus claimed. Because the physical layout of Idc features two distinct inlet-outlet paths, an inherent fluid communication pathway between the inlet and outlets via the cylinder volumes, and a piston separating the chambers, it is entirely capable of running a “suspended polymer liquid” through the first volume and a “non-deposit-forming liquid” through the second volume.
Applicant further argues that Idc fails to disclose a recirculation loop arrangement, asserting that amended claim 1 requires a closed loop because it recites “the non-deposit-forming liquid outlet is in fluid communication with the non-deposit-forming liquid inlet”. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 merely recites outlet being in fluid communication with inlet without reciting any further structural features to define argued “recirculation loop arrangement”. In any given pump, an inlet and an outlet of a pumping chamber are inherently in “fluid communication” with each other because fluid must pass from the inlet, enter the fluid volume, and exit through the outlet.
With respect to arguments on pages 11-12: For dependent claims 2-3, no additional arguments are presented with respect to specific limitations in the claims. As discussed above, arguments with respect to claim 1 are not found to be persuasive.
For dependent claim 5, as discussed above, arguments with respect to claim 1 are not found to be persuasive. In regards to specific features of claim 5, the argument that Crompton is from a “different application” does not patentably distinguish the structural modification. Both Idc and Crompton operate within the analogous art of fluid management and pump supply systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to ensure that fluid entering the second inlet of Idc’s pump is clean and free of particulate matter would look to known filtering configurations within the fluid-handling arts. A prior art is not required to contemplate the exact same problem or fluid medium as the applicant’s invention to be validly combined, provided the structural modification yields a predictable result (in this case, supplying clean, debris-free fluid to the pump chamber).
With respect to arguments on pages 12-13: For dependent claims 7-10, as discussed above, arguments with respect to claim 1 are not found to be persuasive.
In regards to specific features of claim 7, the arguments that Perry operates in a completely different manner is not found to be persuasive. The applicant’s focus on the distinct operational purpose of Perry’s “motive fluid” is a distinction without a structural difference. Perry is from the analogous art of fluid management and pump system design. A person of ordinary skill in the art modifying Idc’s pump assembly would have been motivated to integrate a pressure control device as taught by Perry into the discharge/outlet line of the second volume of Idc. The explicit engineering objective for this modification would be to gain the predictable benefit of controlling and adjusting the downstream line pressure and fluid flow rate exiting that portion of the pump chamber. The law of obviousness does not require that a prior art reference contemplate the exact same environmental problem or chemical fluids as the applicant’s invention to be validly combined, provided the structural modification yields a predictable mechanical arrangement.
With respect to arguments on pages 14: For dependent claims 8-11, as discussed above, arguments with respect to claim 1 are not found to be persuasive.
In regards to specific feature of claim 8, the argument that Roddie is from a “different technical application” does not patentably distinguish the structural modification. Both Idc and Roddie operate within the analogous art of fluid handling and mechanical seal design. A person of ordinary skill in the art looking to implement a secure, high- and low-pressure responsive fluid-tight engagement on the moving piston rod of Idc would look to known piston-seal configurations. It is an established principle of fluid dynamics and mechanical engineering that fluid leakage rates across an elastomeric seal interface (such as a U-cup seal) are directly proportional to the differential fluid pressure across that seal. By utilizing the adjustable pressure control device taught by Perry within the discharge line of the second volume, a person of ordinary skill in the art inherently varies the baseline operational fluid pressure inside Idc’s seal-integral second chamber. Varying this internal chamber pressure alters the pressure differential across Roddie’s U-cup seal, which inherently and naturally adjusts its physical leakage rate. The law of obviousness does not require that a prior art reference explicitly teach the applicant’s discovery of an additional functional benefit (e.g., precenting deposit formation), provided the structural modification is suggested and inherently performs the claimed function. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights