DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 – 13, 15 – 17, 19, 23 – 25 and 28 are pending in the application with claims 19 and 23 – 25 being withdrawn, claims 2, 14, 18, 20 – 22, 26 and 27 being cancelled and claim 28 being newly added. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the last Final Action mailed June 10, 2026.
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 1, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Communications Idc-online (“Single and Double Reciprocating Pumps” – herein after Idc) in view of Yajima, Takeo (US 2022/0331833 – herein after Yajima).
In reference to claim 1, Idc teaches 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.
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 (21).
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).
In reference to claim 4, Idc teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idc in view of Yajima and 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 Yajima and 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 Yajima and 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 Yajima and 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).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idc in view of Yajima and further in view of Shirakawa et al. (US 2005/0103700 – herein after Shirakawa).
Idc, as modified, does not teach the pump apparatus with claimed structure of the filter, i.e. “wherein the suspended polymer liquid filter comprises: a filter housing; and a drain valve oriented at the top of the filter housing so as to dispose of floating polymeric deposits”.
However, Shirakawa teaches a filter (1; see fig. 1) comprising: a filter housing (18); and a drain valve (15) oriented at the top of the filter housing so as to dispose of floating deposits (see ¶57-¶58, ¶65).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a filter comprising a filter housing and a drain valve oriented at the top of the filter housing as taught by Shirakawa in the pump apparatus of Idc/Yajima, 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).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the filter comprising a filter housing and a drain valve oriented at the top of the filter housing as taught by Shirakawa as the filter in the modified pump apparatus of Idc/Yajima for the purpose of using the filtration device that (i) achieves both of filtration and specific gravity difference separation and (ii) prevents the deterioration of filtration performance caused by impurities which are filtered and separated, as recognized by Shirakawa (see ¶17-¶18).
Response to Arguments
The following arguments filed August 21, 2026 have been fully considered:
With respect to drawings, claim objections and 35 USC 102 rejections: The objections and prior art rejection of claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
With respect to amended claim 1 and dependent claims: Because independent claim 1 now includes the outlet filter feature of former claim 2, independent claim 1 is now rejected under 35 USC 103 over Idc (referred as SDRP by the applicant) in view of Yajima (see above). It is to be noted that applicant has not presented any arguments with respect to the combination of Idc and Yajima for the former claim 2. Applicant’s argument that an “evidentiary gap” exists in the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3, 5, 7 and 8 – 10 due to Idc’s failure to disclose an outlet filter is unpersuasive. Because amended independent claim 1 now incorporates the filter limitation of former claim 2, claim 1 is rendered obvious over Idc in view of Yajima, which teaches disposing a filter (15) in a fluid outlet line (12) downstream of a pump (22) for particulate filtration. Consequently, the baseline architecture of claim 1 is fully accounted for, and the further combinations applying Hauser (inlet heat exchanger) to claim 3, Crompton (vessel with bag filter and housing) to claim 5, Perry (adjustable pressure control device in a return line) to claim 7 and Roddie (piston U-cup seal assembly) to claims 8 – 10 remain proper and are maintained under 35 USC 103 for the reasons set forth in this Office Action.
With respect to claim 11: Applicant argues that claim 11 is non-obvious because ¶61 of the filed specification demonstrates unexpected results – namely, that a smooth wire screen avoids agglomerated polymeric deposit adhesion and allows simple wash flushes. This argument is unpersuasive. Under MPEP § 716.01et seq. and In re Soni, an applicant seeking to rely on unexpected results must establish that results are commensurate in scope with the claims and supported by actual comparative data comparing the claimed invention with the closest prior art. ¶61 of the filed specification contains general statements and assertions of advantage rather than objective, side-by-side comparative experimental data against conventional screens. Attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence (see MPEP §716.02(c)).
Claim 11 merely recites a structural limitation requiring “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”. Smith teaches this claimed structure: a screen made by winding a wedge wire (40) around a cylindrical cage of parallel ribs (41) to separate solids from liquid. Because Smith fully teaches the claimed structural combination of a wire screen wrapped around a cylindrical support, any incidental benefit or cleaning property observed by the applicant when passing a specific fluid through the structure is merely an inherent, unpatentable characteristic of an old and obvious mechanical element (see MPEP § 2112).
With respect to newly added claim 28: The arguments are moot in view of newly found and relied upon secondary reference of Shirakawa.
Conclusion
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