DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Filing
The proposed reply filed 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-9 are under examination while claims 10-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0298916 (Teylor hereinafter) in view of US 2021/0079936 (Takahashi hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Teylor teaches a plunger pump that discloses a housing having a bore (Housing 3 in Figures 1 and 2 with bore for plunger 14), an inlet (Inlet 4), and an outlet (Outlet 5); a plunger disposed within the bore (Plunger 14) and a first seal engaged with the plunger to divide the bore into a first chamber and a second chamber (Seal 17 with the first chamber being 15 and the second chamber being on the side of 16 of the seal 17), the plunger configured to reciprocate within the bore between a suction stroke to draw liquid into the first chamber from the inlet and a discharge stroke to expel liquid from the first chamber out of the outlet (Inherent of the plunger pump shown in Figures 1 and 2); a reservoir in fluid communication with and configured to collect liquid that leaks into at least a portion of the second chamber (Broadest reasonable interpretation of a reservoir being the chamber 16 in its entirety able to retain a fluid).
Teylor is silent with respect to a sensor configured to capture data indicative of a level of liquid in the reservoir.
However, Takahashi teaches a piston pump and a fluid leak detection system that discloses a sensor configured to capture data indicative of a level of liquid in a reservoir (Figure 2 with ¶ 44-46 with fluid sensor 100 determines a fluid leak present in the chamber 23 where the resultant combination would allow for the sensor of Takahashi to detect a fluid leak past the seal 22 of Teylor and therefore disclose a sensor configured to capture data indicative of a level of liquid in the reservoir).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the piston pump system of Teylor with the fluid sensor of Takahashi to allow for a user or controller to be made aware of a fluid leak and potentially damaged seal.
Regarding claim 2, Teylor’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Teylor and Takahashi would further disclose that the plunger pump comprises a second seal engaged with the plunger to divide the second chamber into a first portion and a second portion (Seal 22 of Teylor Figure 2 with the first portion being between 22 and 17 of Teylor and the second portion being “left” of 22 towards the space 12 of Teylor), the first portion being disposed between the first chamber and the second portion (Evident from Figure 2); and the reservoir is in fluid communication with and configured to collect liquid that leaks into the second portion of the second chamber (Resultant combination in that the sensor of Takahashi as disclosed in claim 1 will be in communication with the area behind the seal 22 to alert the user to a leakage being present).
Regarding claim 3, Teylor teaches a plunger pump that discloses a housing having a bore (Housing 3 in Figures 1 and 2 with bore for plunger 14), an inlet (Inlet 4), and an outlet (Outlet 5); a plunger disposed within the bore (Plunger 14) and a first seal engaged with the plunger to divide the bore into a first chamber and a second chamber (Seal 17 with the first chamber being 15 and the second chamber being on the side of 16 of the seal 17), the plunger configured to reciprocate within the bore between a suction stroke to draw liquid into the first chamber from the inlet and a discharge stroke to expel liquid from the first chamber out of the outlet (Inherent of the plunger pump shown in Figures 1 and 2); a second seal engaged with the plunger to divide the second chamber into a first portion and a second portion (Seal 22 of Teylor Figure 2 with the first portion being between 22 and 17 of Teylor and the second portion being “left” of 22 towards the space 12 of Teylor), the first portion being disposed between the first chamber and the second portion (Evident from Figure 2).
Teylor is silent with respect to a sensor configured to capture data indicative of a presence of liquid in the second portion of the second chamber.
However, Takahashi teaches a piston pump and a fluid leak detection system that discloses a sensor configured to capture data indicative of a level of liquid in a reservoir (Figure 2 with ¶ 44-46 with fluid sensor 100 determines a fluid leak present in the chamber 23 where the resultant combination would allow for the sensor of Takahashi to detect a fluid leak past the seal 22 of Teylor and therefore disclose a sensor configured to capture data indicative of a level of liquid in the reservoir behind the seal 22 to alert the user to a leakage being present).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the piston pump system of Teylor with the fluid sensor of Takahashi to allow for a user or controller to be made aware of a fluid leak and potentially damaged seal.
Regarding claim 4, Teylor’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Teylor and Takahashi would further disclose that the first seal is configured to: permit liquid communication between the first chamber and the first portion of the second chamber during the suction stroke (As the plunger 14 is withdrawn [drawn Figures 1 and 2 leftward] fluid may pass through the seal 17 and be entered into the leak recovery chamber 16); and prevent liquid communication between the first chamber and the first portion of the second chamber during the discharge stroke (The Examiner is understanding that the valve 17 would not leak during a pressure/discharge stroke of 14 [pressed Figures 1 and 2 rightward] otherwise the pressure within the chamber 15 would be less than required/desired by Teylor).
Regarding claim 6, Teylor’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Teylor and Takahashi would further disclose one or more vents in fluid communication with the second portion of the second chamber (Vent formed at 60 of Takahashi in ¶ 46 and Figure 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0298916 (Teylor) in view of US 2021/0079936 (Takahashi) and further in view of US 4340204 (Herd hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Teylor’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect to a bleeder valve in fluid communication with the first portion of the second chamber.
However, Herd teaches an actuating piston of a valve that is sealed from a fluid source that discloses a bleeder valve (Figure 1 with valves 233 and 237). The resultant combination would be such that the bleed valve of Herd is in fluid communication with the first portion of the second chamber to prevent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first portion of the second chamber of Teylor with the bleeder valve(s) of Herd to ensure that the designed leakage does not get to a pressure that is too high while still allowing the return flow.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0298916 (Teylor) in view of US 2021/0079936 (Takahashi) and further in view of US 2014/0251125 (Fritschle hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Teylor’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect that the second seal comprises an X-ring.
However, Fritschle teaches a piston sealing system that discloses the use of an X-ring for sealing (¶ 95-96 and Figure 2 with seal 136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a simple substitution of the seal 17 of Teylor with the x-ring of Fritschle to obtain the well-known and predictable result of sealing the reciprocating piston of Teylor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0298916 (Teylor) in view of US 2021/0079936 (Takahashi) and further in view of US 2016/0109035 (McCarty hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Teylor’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect that the first seal comprises a packing stack having: a male adapter ring; a female adapter ring; and one or more V-rings, each disposed between the male adapter ring and the female adapter ring.
However, McCarty teaches a valve packing assembly for a reciprocating piston hat discloses seal comprises a packing stack having: a male adapter ring (Figure 1 with ¶ 31-32 and male ring 50); a female adapter ring (Female ring 46); and one or more V-rings, each disposed between the male adapter ring and the female adapter ring (V-rings 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the singular seal of Teylor with the packing stack of McCarty to minimize the possibility of a leak from occurring.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0298916 (Teylor) in view of US 2021/0079936 (Takahashi) and further in view of US 4295653 (Coles hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Teylor’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect that the sensor is an optical sensor.
However, Coles teaches a piston ump that discloses an optical sensor to detect the presence of fluid that has leaked past a seal (Figure 1, sight glass 31 is broadly interpreted as an optical sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Takahashi with the visual aspect of Coles to allow for a user to readily identify if a leak is present and to what extent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding “a reservoir in fluid communication with and configured to collect liquid that leaks into at least a portion of the second chamber” has been reviewed but is not found to be persuasive. The current rejection relies on US 2017/0298916 (Teylor) teaching the first chamber being at the compression chamber 15 in Figures 1 and 2, the second chamber being all chambers to the figure left side of the seal 17 such as , and the reservoir being the leak recovery chamber 16 specifically. The description of Teylor teaches the above limitation from claim 1 and the Examiner is not persuaded by the Applicant. Applicant would be advised to add more relative positioning and/or structure from their figures to overcome the rejection of record.
Applicant’s argument regarding “a sensor configured to capture data indicative of a level of liquid in the reservoir” has been reviewed but is not found to be persuasive. The current rejection relies on US 2021/0079936 (Takahashi) for teaching a sensor configured to capture data indicative of a level of liquid in a reservoir. Takahashi in Figure 2 uses the fluid sensor 100 to determine if a leak of fluid is present in the chamber 23 (¶ 44-46). The term “a level of liquid” is broad to allow for the interpretation of a level regarding height fluid or a level being an amount of fluid. Applicant would be advised to clarify the measured quantity of the fluid to overcome the rejection of record. However, Applicant’s arguments at this time are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding Claims 3-9 being patentable has been reviewed but is not found to be persuasive. A note should be made that the described coloring added to Applicant’s Figure 8A on Page 10 is unable to be seen due to the PDF being in grayscale. Applicant’s arguments appear to be similar to those made to claim 1 and the first chamber and the second chamber. The Examiner is of the same stance made above in section 10.a. The shown Figure 8A of the instant application has differing structure than taught by Kerr and Applicant is invited to use these relative structural positions to overcome the rejection of record. Furthermore, Applicant is welcomed to hold an interview to further discuss potential amendments to overcome the interpretation of Kerr as applied to claims 3-9 as well as claims 1-2.
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762