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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, corresponding claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (22 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16 “plurality of detent pockets” should read --a plurality of detent pockets--;
Claim 1, line 20 the language “further” should be deleted since it does not define anything or help reader to understand more.
Claim 1, lines 18-19 “the top of the adjuster housing…one of the detent pockets” should read –a top of the adjuster housing…one of the plurality of detent pockets--.
Claim 5, line 3 “the cylindrical body” should read –the generally cylindrical body--;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The preamble of claim 1 is “a lubrication pump”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the lubrication pump by itself, without a reservoir.
However, in the body of claim 1 recites a reservoir and the phrase “a housing having…,and a reservoir…” and later lines 4-6 “…a cut-out section at one end configured to be disposed within the reservoir and an inclined surface at an opposite end of the piston relative to the reservoir”. Looking at Applicant’s figure 1, the reservoir 130 is NOT a part of the pump 134 (another words, the pump and the reservoir are two different parts), therefore, it is confusing.
Also, it is unclear what scope to give the preamble since the claim body appear to recite a reservoir. As the preamble of claim 1 is written, the preamble is NOT suggest to have a reservoir, however, the body claim recites a reservoir. Thus, it is unclear. If the reservoir is not positively recited, then any prior art held against it would need to show structures of a lubrication pump without a reservoir, right?
Claim 1, the last line “over a range of about 17mL/min” (emphasis added) is unclear since there is only one value “17mL/min”. See Merriam-Webster, a range is a series of things in a line.
Claim 2, “a range of about 17mL/min…a range…” is unclear whether this range refers back to the range in claim 1 or an additional range.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayanagi et al (US 9903397) hereinafter Takayanagi in view of Ishida (US 2004/0022654) and Kobayashi (US 3809185).
Regarding claims 1-2, as best understood, Takayanagi shows a lubrication pump (Figures 2-7) for pumping a lubricant in a power tool (a chain saw), the pump comprising:
a housing (33, Figure 7) having an inlet (38, Figure 3A), an outlet (39) and a reservoir (see Figure 2 and Col. 7, line 11-12 “ the oil pump 30 draws the lubricating oil stored in the oil tank, through the oil intake pipe 11 from the inlet port 38”) extending between the inlet and the outlet (see the pipe 11, Figure 2);
a piston (31, Figure 3A) disposed within the housing, the piston comprising a cut-out section at one end (see the cut-out where the reference “31b”, Figure 3A) configured to be disposed within the reservoir and an inclined surface at an opposite end of the piston (31c, Figure 3A) relative to the reservoir (this cut-out section is configured to be any position including the claimed position between the inclined surface and the reservoir);
a bias spring (37, Figure 3A) configured to bias the piston in a first direction (a direction along the L axis);
a gear (31a) configured to operably couple with a drive gear (10) to drive movement of the piston; and
a lubricant flow adjustment system (40-45, Figure 3A) comprising:
an adjuster body (41) configured to contact the inclined surface of the piston (see it contacts at a portion 41a, Figure 3A);
a pin (41) extending from the adjuster body at one end thereof, and a detent spring (45) at an opposite end of the adjuster body from the pin and configured to bias the adjuster body (41) in a second direction (along the shaft 41, Figure 3A);
wherein the housing comprises an adjustment section (where it supports the shaft 41, Figure 3A) comprising an adjuster housing (Figure 3A) in which the adjuster body is disposed (therein, Figure 3A) and a plurality of detent pockets (33b-33d, Figure 4) disposed at a top surface of the adjuster housing, each detent pocket having a different height (see Figure 3C where the pin 42 rests thereon and Col. 5, lines 1 “portions 33b to 33d, which are different in height”),
wherein the pin is configured to be exposed from a top of the adjuster housing and seated within one of the plurality of detent pockets (see Figure 7), wherein a position of the detent pin is configured to control an amount of reciprocating movement of the piston in the first direction to controllably adjust an amount of lubricant dispensed through the pump (see the abstract and the summary of the invention),
however, it is unclear whether the amount of lubricant dispensed through the pump is in a range from about 3 mL/min to about 20 mL/min (over about 17mL/min as set claim 1) or not.
Ishida shows a lubrication pump (Figure 1) having a piston (2) for supplying lubricant oil to a chain saw (Para. 87), wherein the pump is capable of discharging at a small rate 10cc/min (10mL/min) as discussed in Para. 87.
Kobayashi shows a lubrication pump (Figure 1) for supplying lubricant oil to a chain saw (Abstract), wherein the pump is capable of discharging at an actual discharge rate 10cc/min (10mL/min) as discussed in Col. 4, lines 50-56.
Based on the teachings Ishida and Kobayashi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the pump of Takayanagi to be capable of discharging at a rate 10cc/min or 10mL/min, as taught by Ishida and Kobayashi, in order to allow to properly supply a lubrication oil to a size of a chain saw.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the lubrication pump capable of discharging lubrication oil of any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or discharge rate or range (3 mL/min to about 20 mL/min) depending on a size of a chain saw requirements to be manufactured. For an example,
a small chainsaw, it likely requires a small pump with a low discharge rate and a large chainsaw which likely requires a larger pump with a high discharge rate. These are known results effective variables, depending on sizes of chainsaws.
Regarding claim 3, the modified pump of Takayanagi shows that the plurality of detent pockets comprises at least four detent pockets (there are at least 6 pockets “33b-33d on each side” as seen in Figure 4 of Takayanagi).
Regarding claim 4, the modified pump of Takayanagi shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the plurality of detent pockets comprises seven detent pockets (Takayanagi shows only 6 as discussed in claim 3 above).
With regards to “seven detent dockets”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have had more detent dockets (at least seven detent dockets), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8., in order to the lubrication oil pump to be finely adjusted and allow to easily control small amounts of a discharge lubrication oil.
Regarding claims 5-6, the modified pump of Takayanagi shows that the adjuster housing comprises a generally cylindrical body, further wherein the plurality of detent pockets are disposed about a circumference of the cylindrical body (see Figure 4 of Takayanagi) and wherein the plurality of detent pockets are disposed around about 270 degrees of the circumference of the cylindrical body (see all portions 33b-33d, Figure 4 of Takayanagi).
Regarding claims 7-8, the modified pump of Takayanagi shows that at least a portion of the gear is exposed from the housing (see Figure 3A of Takayanagi, the gear 31a is exposed to mate with the worm gear 10) and wherein the gear extends outside the housing from a longitudinal direction (see the gear 31a in Figure 3A of Takayanagi).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayanagi et al (US 9903397) hereinafter Takayanagi in view of Ishida (US 2004/0022654) and Kobayashi (US 3809185) and Wieland (US 4578411).
Regarding claim 9, the modified pump of Takayanagi shows all of the limitations as stated above except a grease cap configured to surround the top surface of the adjuster housing.
Wieland shows a lubricating pump (only figure) including a cap (24, as claim 9 is written, it is unclear what structure of the cap be. Reading Applicant’s specification, Para. 46 “any suitably shaped cap 208 for retaining grease or lubricant and prevent the grease or lubricant from exiting the housing 150”, therefore, the seal rings 24 considered as a cap because it prevents the lubricant from exiting a housing 26). Also, Wieland shows a sealing cap (5) and a cap (3) for preventing the lubricant exiting from the housing (26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a sealing cap or a sealing ring, as taught by Wieland to the top of the adjuster housing of Takayanagi, in order to prevents any lubricant exiting from the housing as discussed above. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 2/27/2026