Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1221827 (herein Hales) in view of Shimogawa et al (US Patent No. 9,879,643).
Hales teaches:
limitations from claim 14, a method of returning energy to a cam in a drive assembly (FIG. 4), said method comprising: supporting a circular cam (43; FIG. 4-5; Page 3 Lines 1-3) surface on a cam shaft (42) having a cam shaft axis of rotation (Page 2 Lines 129-130), said circular cam surface have a cam axis of rotation offset from the cam shaft axis of rotation (FIG. 4-5; Page 3 Lines 1-3); providing a cam roller (FIG. 4; Page 3 Lines 2-3) surrounding said cam surface; coupling a cam follower (40) to the circular cam surface to that the cam follower is moved along a drive axis perpendicular to the cam shaft axis of rotation between a first cam follower position and a second cam follower position (Page 2 Lines and Page 3 Lines 1-6); connecting an energy accumulator (45) to the cam follower to receive axial force from the cam follower as the cam follower moves from the first cam follower position to the second cam follower position, wherein said axial force received by said energy accumulator compresses a bias element and said energy accumulator returns energy to the cam by extension of the bias element as the cam follower moves from the second cam follower position to the first cam follower position (element 45 is a spring; Page 3 Lines 7-10; Page 2 Lines 50-61 and Page 3 Lines 7-13);
PNG
media_image1.png
348
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hales teaches a cam follower bore (18) complimentary to the follower (40), but does not teach a lubricant supply path as claimed (Hales teaches only that a lubrication can involve water when used as a pumped liquid, but is silent as to non-water lubrication);
Shimogawa teaches:
a fuel pump (FIG. 8-10) including a drive shaft (13), cam (38), and follower (44); and: a drive housing (25) defining a drive chamber (36) and an oil inlet (~48) communicating with the drive chamber (FIG. 8-10; C. 7 Lines 36-60); said cam shaft defining an oil flow passage (47) along a shaft axis; said cam including a radially extending oil passage (59-60) connecting the oil flow passage with the cam surface (C. 9 Lines 1-7) and an interface of the cam surface and cam roller lubricated with oil flowing through the oil flow passage and radially extending oil passage to the cam surface (see for example passage 48 and passage 49, and the arrows in FIG. 9; C. 9 Lines 8-13);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a lubricating path in the pump of Hales, such as the shaft-based lubricant path of Shimogawa, in order to ensure lubrication to the relatively movable parts of the pump to reduce friction and the accompanying deleterious effects related thereto (particularly when pumping a non-water-based fluid).
Hales does not expressly teach said cam follower having an outside surface guided on a complementary surface of said drive housing for movement along a drive axis perpendicular to said shaft axis;
However, Shimogawa teaches that the follower (44) includes an outside surface (66) guided on a complimentary surface of drive housing (25) along an axis (of piston 22; C. 7 Lines 1-19);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to allow the follower of Hales to be guided axially within the housing, as taught by Shimogawa, in order to reduce movement of the follower away from the axis to create a more stable reciprocating motion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to Bertram and Shimogawa, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1 and 10 and their dependents has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 with respect to Claim 14 as rejected in view of Hales and Shimogawa have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Hales, applicant argues: “There is only one driven surface on the stirrup 23 and the eccentric drives the stirrup only in a direction to compress the spring 33. In the opposite direction, the spring 33 drives the stirrup 23 and plunger 10 in the pumping direction.”. However, the elements argued in this section (Pages 13-14 of the response) are narrower than the limitations of current Claim 14. Claim 14 does not require multiple driven surfaces on either side of the roller spaced equal to a diameter of the roller, such that contact moves the follower in both directions, and wherein the cam roller is slip fit with the driven surfaces. Therefore, the examiner maintains that Hales in view of Shimogawa teach the limitations of Claim 14.
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 CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights