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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of November 7, 2025 which amended claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereafter AAPA) in view of Hendrick (EP 3,734,066 A1).
AAPA, it is noted that claim 1 of the instant application is written in Jepson format and therefore the preamble represents admitted prior art, this in combination with Fig. 1 which represents prior art to another (i.e., Graco and Tapflo, see [0003]) teaches of a double diaphragm pump characterized by opposing first and second fluid chambers, the first and second fluid chambers selectively receive an input from an inlet and discharge an output from an outlet, with the fluid chambers respectively acted upon by respective diaphragms in an alternating manner, the diaphragms being driven by a centrally located rotary to linear actuator, whereby when the first chamber is filling with the input, the second chamber is discharging the output, and when the first chamber is discharging the output, the second chamber is filling with the input, said first and second fluid chambers being disposed outwardly of the respective diaphragms. AAPA does not teach that the pump includes a linear actuator connected to a thrust tube, whereby the thrust tube is connected to the diaphragms of the first and second fluid chambers and the linear actuator is restricted to linear motion along an axis thereby driving the thrust tube in reciprocating linear motion.
Hendrick discloses a similar double diaphragm pump (see Fig. 4A & 4B) characterized by opposing first (30) and second (32) fluid chambers located inwardly of the diaphragm members (10,11). The first (30) and second (32) fluid chambers selectively receive input flow from an inlet (6) and discharge output flow from an outlet (7), with the fluid chambers respectively acted upon by respective diaphragms (10,11) in an alternating manner whereby when the first chamber is filling with input (see Fig. 4B), the second chamber is discharging output, and when the first chamber is discharging output (see Fig. 4A), the second chamber is filling with input, the improvement comprising: a linear actuator (15) is connected to a thrust tube (12), whereby the thrust tube is connected (see Figs. 4A & 4B) to the diaphragms of the first and second fluid chambers and the linear actuator is restricted to linear motion (see the arrows near the shaft axes of Figs. 4A & 4B) along an axis thereby driving the thrust tube in reciprocating linear motion.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the linear actuator such as taught by Hendrick for the linear actuator of AAPA since centrally mounted and outwardly mounted linear actuators for double diaphragm pumps are recognized as equivalence for their use in the double diaphragm pump drive art and selection of either of these known equivalents to drive the double diaphragm pump of AAPA would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
With regards to claim 2, Hendrick discloses the pump of claim 1 further comprising a motor (13) having a rotating shaft (16) operably coupled (via the scotch yoke of Fig. 2B) to the linear actuator instigating the reciprocating linear motion of the linear actuator.
With regards to claim 16, Hendrick discloses the pump of claim 1 wherein the axis (the axis extending along the central axis of shafts 15 and 12) is parallel to a reciprocation axis of the thrust tube.
With regards to claim 17, Hendrick discloses the pump of claim 16 wherein the axis (the axis extending along the central axis of shafts 15 and 12) is colinear with the reciprocation axis (see Fig. 4A & 4B).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrick (EP 3,734,066 A1) in view of Childs et al (USPN 6,017,200).
Hendrick discloses a double diaphragm pump (see Fig. 4A & 4B) characterized by opposing first (30) and second (32) fluid chambers located inwardly of the diaphragm members (10,11). The first (30) and second (32) fluid chambers selectively receive input flow from an inlet (6) and discharge output flow from an outlet (7), with the fluid chambers respectively acted upon by respective diaphragms (10,11) in an alternating manner whereby when the first chamber is filling with the input (see Fig. 4B), the second chamber is discharging the output, and when the first chamber is discharging the output (see Fig. 4A), the second chamber is filling with the input, a linear actuator (15) is connected to a thrust tube (12), whereby the thrust tube is connected (see Figs. 4A & 4B) to the diaphragms of the first and second fluid chambers and the linear actuator is restricted to linear motion (see the arrows near the shaft axes of Figs. 4A & 4B) along an axis thereby driving the thrust tube in reciprocating linear motion.
Hendrick does not disclose the first and second fluid chambers being disposed outwardly of the respective diaphragms.
Childs et al disclose a similar positive displacement double pumping member (88, 96) pump (see Fig. 3, Childs et al being analogous to Hendrick) which is driven by a linear actuator (82, 84) connected to a thrust tube 102. Each pumping member (88,96) operating within a cylinder and creating inwardly disposed fluid chambers (92, 98) and outwardly disposed fluid chambers (90, 100).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the outwardly disposed first and second fluid chambers that are already present in Hendrik so that they can be configured to pump fluid, as taught by Childs et al, in order to create an increased pumping capacity.
With regards to claim 2, Hendrick discloses the pump of claim 1 further comprising a motor (13) having a rotating shaft (16) operably coupled (via the scotch yoke of Fig. 2B) to the linear actuator instigating the reciprocating linear motion of the linear actuator.
With regards to claim 16, Hendrick discloses the pump of claim 1 wherein the axis (the axis extending along the central axis of shafts 15 and 12) is parallel to a reciprocation axis of the thrust tube.
With regards to claim 17, Hendrick discloses the pump of claim 16 wherein the axis (the axis extending along the central axis of shafts 15 and 12) is colinear with the reciprocation axis (see Fig. 4A & 4B).
Claim(s) 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either AAPA in view of Hendrick or Hendrick in view of Childs et al as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Bert et al (USPN 5,725,358) and Xiao (USPAP 2007/0134107).
With regards to claims 3-10, as set forth above, each of AAPA in view of Hendrick or Hendrick in view of Childs et al disclose the pump of claims 1 and 2, but do not disclose a servo (cl. 5) motor having a rotating shaft operably coupled to the linear actuator instigating the reciprocating linear motion of the linear actuator; a gear box intermediate the motor and the linear actuator (cl. 3); the gear box increasing torque from the motor as applied to the linear actuator (cl. 4); wherein a drive shaft of the motor extends in a direction oppositely oriented relative to a piston extending from the linear actuator (cl. 6); wherein the linear actuator has threads which selectively drive a piston, which is connected to the thrust tube (cl. 8), linearly along the axis (cl. 7), the threads are a portion of a precision lead screw (cl. 9), and wherein the precision lead screw has a rotation axis and the rotation axis is parallel to a reciprocation axis of the thrust tube (cl. 10).
Bert et al disclose a reciprocating positive displacement double acting piston pump (see col. 3 lines 1-3 & 27-30) which is driven by a servo motor (94) having a rotating shaft (100) operably coupled to the linear actuator (44, 46, 48, 50) instigating the reciprocating linear motion of the linear actuator; a speed reduction pulley box (note the dashed line covering the pulleys as shown at the top of Figs. 1, 2, 3) intermediate the motor and the linear actuator; the gear box increasing torque (Fig. 4 makes clear the pulleys 92, 98 reduce input speed and thus increase the torque delivered to the actuator) from the motor as applied to the linear actuator; wherein a drive shaft of the motor (100 in Fig. 1a) extends in a direction oppositely oriented (upwards in Fig. 1a) relative to a piston (74, 76, 40) extending (downwards) from the linear actuator; wherein the linear actuator has threads (see the threads of element 50 in Fig. 5) which selectively drive the piston (74, 76, 40), which is connected to the reciprocating double acting pump (30), linearly along the axis (see Figs. 2 & 3), the threads are a portion of a precision lead screw (50), and wherein the precision lead screw has a rotation axis and the rotation axis is parallel to a reciprocation axis of the thrust tube (see Figs. 1 & 1a). Bert generically describes the 92 and 98 and do not mention that the gear wheels include teeth, i.e. are pulley gears, thus making the speed reduction transmission box a gear box. Xiao discloses a similar double acting reciprocating pump having a pulley transmission including pulley gears 21.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the servo motor driven rotary screw drive of Bert et al for the rotary motor driven scotch yoke mechanism of Hendrick since rotary screw drives and scotch yoke mechanisms are recognized as equivalence for their use in the reciprocating drive art and selection of either of these known equivalents to reciprocally drive the double acting pump of Hendrick would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Similarly, substituting the pulley gear type pulleys of Xiao for the generically disclosed pulleys of Bert et al would be obvious since these pulley type are also recognized as equivalent rotary transmissions and substituting one for the other would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Additionally, the pulley gear type pulley would reduce slip between the pulley and the belt.
With regards to claim 11, Bert et al discloses the servo motor driving the pump being regulated by a controller (108).
With regards to claim 12, Bert et al discloses wherein the controller is one of a programmable logic controller (col. 6 lines 50 and 51 note the controller is a microprocessor performing a control program, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation is a programmable logic controller).
With regards to claim 13, Bert et al discloses wherein the controller (108) directs at least one of stroke, speed (see col. 6 lines 41-45 which states that speed and stroke are controlled) and cycles.
With regards to claim 14, Bert et al discloses wherein the controller permits adjustment of at least one of stroke, speed (Fig. 6 shows that the user enters a setpoint pressure, by entering or changing the setpoint pressure the speed required would be adjusted) and cycles by an operator.
With regards to claim 15, Bert et al discloses wherein the controller provides feedback to an electric data acquisition system (as shown in Fig. 6 the pressure sensor maybe considered as a data acquisition system since it acquires data related to the pressure) and the controller provides feedback in the form of the drive signal to the motor 46 and planetary roller assembly 94.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the Hendrick pump with the fluid chambers being located outwardly since the inlet and outlet or Hendrick communicate with the inwardly located chambers.
Respectfully this is not found persuasive. It is noted that the newly presented Childs et al reference and the amended Jepson claim presented by the applicant teach that such double chamber pumps are well-known. Further, for the reasons set forth above these teachings make the newly claimed invention obvious.
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 CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
December 6, 2025