DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed 18 December 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“the pressure supply inlets”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
112F NOT INVOKED
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the feeding pressure inlets.” There is insufficient written description for this new limitation in the claims. While the term is recited in applicant’s spec (par 055). There are no element numbers, nor physical description which describes precisely what constitutes the “feeding pressure inlets.” Applicant’s figure 2 shows the “quick release fastening pins 21,” which are provided to “the feeding pressure inlets,” there is no indication in the figure 2 of what constitutes “the feeding pressure inlets.” Therefore, applicant lacks written description of “the feeding pressure inlets” adequate to convey that at the time the application was filed, that they had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore claim 1 is rejected for lack of written description. Dependent claims 2-10 are correspondingly rejected.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the amendment “the feeding pressure inlets” which are provided with “quick-release fastening pins 21,” it is unclear which structure “the feeding pressure inlets” refers to. While the term is recited in applicant’s spec (par 055). There are no element numbers, nor physical description which describes precisely what constitutes the “feeding pressure inlets.” Applicant’s figure 2 shows the “quick release fastening pins 21,” which are at one end of “the multi-ejector vacuum generator 2” element. Reasonably, one could interpret said feeding pressure inlets to refer to a part, or the entirety of the multi-ejector vacuum generator; or to another part of the vacuum generator pump assembly. Since it is unclear what part of the assembly that applicant intends “feeding pressure inlets” to refer to. Therefore claim 1 is rejected for indefiniteness. Dependent claims 2-10 are correspondingly rejected.
Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, recites “a compressed air inlet.” It is unclear whether “a compressed air inlet” refers to the same or different element than the “the feeding pressure inlets.” The specification is silent on whether they are the same part or different. It is reasonable that they could refer to the same part because they are both named inlets and are associated with multi-ejector vacuum generator (fig 4 shows the “feeding sleeve 54” that connects to the compressed air inlet; fig 2, shows the fastening pin 21, which equip the pressure supply inlets). However, they have different names which implies nominally they are different parts. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended scope of applicant’s claim because it is unclear whether “a compressed air inlet” and “the feeding pressure inlets” are the same or different elements. Therefore claim 3 is rejected for indefiniteness.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tell (US 6,394,760) in view of Cho (US 11149752).
Regarding claim 1, Tell discloses a vacuum generator pump (fig 2, c 1 ln 4-5) including a multi-ejector vacuum generator (fig 2, c 1 ln 4-5)
Wherein the multi-ejector vacuum generator comprises at least three stages (chambers which hold slots 7, 8, 9, c 2 ln 45, 57), and at least four nozzles (nozzles 2, 3, 4, 5, c 2 ln 26), wherein: each stage comprises a vacuum chamber (slots 7, 8, 9 with one way valves to retain pressure, c 2 ln 54-60) and at least two diaphragms (valve members 11, made of flexible material, c 2 ln 58-60) configured to act as valves (id.); each nozzle (2-5) is configured to act as a receiver at its proximal end and an ejector at its distal end (all nozzles 2-5 intake gas on the inlet side and discharge it on the outlet side);
wherein, the distal end of the first nozzle is connected to the first stage vacuum chamber in its proximal portion (fig 2 depicts outlet of 2 connecting to inlet of 7);
the proximal end of the second nozzle is connected to the first stage vacuum chamber in its distal portion (fig 2 depicts inlet of 3 connected to outlet of 7);
the distal end of the second nozzle is connected to the second stage vacuum chamber in its proximal portion (fig 2 depicts outlet of 3 connected to inlet of 8);
the proximal end of the third nozzle is connected to the second stage vacuum chamber in its distal portion (fig 2 depicts inlet of 4 connected to outlet of 8);
the distal end of the third nozzle is connected to the third stage vacuum chamber in its proximal portion (fig 2 depicts outlet of 4 is connected to inlet of 9); and
the proximal end of the fourth nozzle is connected to the third stage vacuum chamber in its distal portion (fig 2 depicts inlet of 5 connected to outlet of 9).
Tell is silent on a fastening means,
Wherein the fastening means comprises
Fastening systems having different openings configured so that when pressure supply inlets, which are equipped with fastening pins, of the multi-ejector vacuum generator are inserted into the fastening systems and are rotated to a defined position on the second fastening system, the second fastening system does not allow rotational movement of the pressure supply inlets and the first fastening system does not allow translational movement of the pressure supply inlets, in the direction in which the pressure supply inlets entered.
Cho teaches an air ejector with a pressure supply inlet (fig 1, compressed air inlet 5, c 1 ln 48-50) and a fastening means (fixing bolts 36, c 4 ln 46-51; which passes through the profile 20 of the ejector pump 30, c 4 ln 46-51; profile 20 belongs to the ejector pump 30, c 3 ln 42-45), which prevents the ejector pump from being moved (c 4 ln 50-51; fixing portion 34 is part of the ejector pump 30, c 4 ln 36-37); such that
fastening systems having different openings configured so that when pressure supply inlets (5), which are equipped with fastening pins (36), of the multi-ejector vacuum generator are inserted into the fastening systems (bolts 36 are passed through the holes in the profile 20) and are rotated to a defined position on the second fastening system (threaded bolts are known in the art as rotated in order to fasten), the second fastening system does not allow rotational movement of the pressure supply inlets (fixing portion 34 prevented from movement, c 4 ln 50-51, fixing portion 34 is part of ejector pump 30, c 4 ln 36) and the first fastening system does not allow translational movement of the pressure supply inlets (bolts 36 prevent movement, id.), in the direction in which the pressure supply inlets entered (bolts 36 prevent movement, id.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a compressed air inlet and fastening means to the inlet chamber of Tell in order to provide and fasten compressed air to the injectors as taught by Cho for the expected result of providing air to power the ejectors of the pump, and fixing that ejector in place in its housing, for the expected result of providing a vacuum pump powered by compressed air and able to maintain its relative position in its housing so that it can maintain tolerances required for its functionality as is known in the art.
Claim 2, Tell in view of Cho teaches vacuum generator pump, according to claim 1, wherein the nozzles (Tell, fig 2, 2-5) are positioned internally to the stages (fig 2 depicts nozzles within the housing which makes up slots 7-9), configured longitudinally, and the diaphragms (valves 11) are positioned on the external surfaces of the vacuum chamber of the stages (valves 11 are on the inner facing surface of each slot 7-9 to form the check valve), orthogonally to the nozzles (fig 2 check valves 11 with flow directions orthogonal to the direction of flow through nozzles 2-5).
Claim 3, Tell in view of Cho teaches the multi-ejector vacuum generator for vacuum generator pump, according to claim 1, characterized in that a feeding sleeve (Tell, fig 6, inlet chamber I, surrounds the nozzle 2 and appears to be sized to seal against o-ring 22, c 3 ln 43-60; this sealing relationship with chamber I, makes chamber I meet the plain meaning of sleeve, as it is sleeved around the o-ring 22).
Tell is silent on the inlet chamber configured to connect [a] compressed air inlet with the first nozzle (2). Nevertheless , Tell disclosing that chamber I is an “inlet chamber,” (c 3 ln 45) and that the ejector is powered by air (c 3 ln 33) suggests that the “inlet chamber I” also includes an inlet for air.
Cho further teaches an air ejector with a compressed air inlet (fig 1, compressed air inlet 5, c 1 ln 48-50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a compressed air inlet to the inlet chamber of Tell in order to provide compressed air to the injectors as taught by Cho and suggested by Tell for the expected result of providing air to power the ejectors of the pump.
Claim 4, Tell in view of Cho teaches vacuum generator pump, according to claim 3, further comprising: a manifold reservoir (Tell, chambers I may be provided with transverse bores, c 3 ln 52; this acts as a manifold when multiple nozzle bodies are mounted in parallel, c 3 ln 39-40; first of two claimed alternatives) or air passage control solenoid valves (second of two claimed in the alternative; this is not found in the current art of record), which is placed between the compressed air inlet and the first nozzle (the plain meaning of manifold is a pipe fitting from one source to several outlets; this limitation is the expected result of using the previously claimed manifold).
Claims 5, and 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tell in view of Cho in view of Tell-2015 (US 2015/0316074) in view of Ikeda (US 2005/0077373).
Claim 5, Tell in view of Cho teaches the vacuum generator pump, according to claim 1.
Tell is silent wherein the first nozzle (2) has, in its parallel portion, a diameter between 3 and 60 mm, and,
in its diverging portion, angle of divergence between 7 and 9 degrees, and
a maximum diameter between 5 and 95 mm.
Tell-2015 evidences that in any multi-stage vacuum pump of this type, the nozzles are tailored either to produce high-volume flow but not achieve as high a pressure, or that they are tailored for low-volume flow but a higher pressure (par 0003), and that the nozzles must be sized for sufficient volume flow rate to create said vacuum, and while creating a desired pressure differential (par 0004); where the ratio of the diameters of the nozzle at its inlet and outlet end determine the flow rate of the nozzle (par 0074).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the diameter of the nozzle at the claimed range is a result effective variable to “meet volume and pressure requirements” as taught by Tell-2015 (par 0004). A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range of diameters (3-60 mm) of the nozzle is obvious because it can be selected to meet volume and pressure requirements as taught by the prior art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the maximum diameter in relation to the diameter of the nozzle at the inlet is a result effective variable to “determine the flow rate of the nozzle” as taught by Tell-2015 (par 0074). A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range of maximum diameters (5-95mm) in relation to the diameter of the nozzle (3-60 mm) creates an obvious ratio that is selected to make a desired flow rate for volume and pressure requirements as taught by the prior art.
Ikeda teaches a nozzle divergence angle between 5-10 degrees with a best result at 7.5 degrees, where angles less than 5 degrees increased friction and angles more than 10 degrees created eddies and friction, which prevented vacuum (par 0045).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Tell by adding Ikeda’s diverging portion (Ikeda, par 0045) with an angle of divergence preferably between 7 and 9 degrees (Ikeda, 7.5 degrees, par 0045) in order to reduce friction that prevents vacuum from forming in an ejector jet.
Regarding claim 7, Tell in view of Cho teaches the vacuum generator pump according to claim 1.
Tell does not disclose wherein the third nozzle has, in its parallel portion, a diameter between 15 and 210 mm, and in its divergent portion, maximum diameter between 17 and 240 mm, and angle of divergence between 0.5 and 3.5 degrees.
Tell-2015 evidences that in any multi-stage vacuum pump of this type, the nozzles are tailored either to produce high-volume flow but not achieve as high a pressure, or that they are tailored for low-volume flow but a higher pressure (par 0003), and that the nozzles must be sized for sufficient volume flow rate to create said vacuum, and while creating a desired pressure differential (par 0004); where the ratio of the diameters of the nozzle at its inlet and outlet end determine the flow rate of the nozzle (par 0074).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the diameter of the nozzle at the claimed range is a result effective variable to “meet volume and pressure requirements” as taught by Tell-2015 (par 0004). A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range of diameters (15-210 mm) of the nozzle is obvious because it can be selected to meet volume and pressure requirements as taught by the prior art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the maximum diameter in relation to the diameter of the nozzle at the inlet is a result effective variable to “determine the flow rate of the nozzle” as taught by Tell-2015 (par 0074). A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range of maximum diameters (17- 240mm) in relation to the diameter of the nozzle (15-210 mm) creates an obvious ratio that is selected to make a desired flow rate for volume and pressure requirements as taught by the prior art.
Ikeda teaches a nozzle divergence angle between 1.75-3.25 degrees for reduced friction in a three dimensional ejector (par 0048).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Tell by adding Ikeda’s diverging portion (Ikeda, par 0048) with an angle of divergence preferably between 0.5 and 3.5 degrees (Ikeda, 1.75-3.25 degrees, par 0048) in order to reduce friction that prevents vacuum from forming in an ejector jet.
Regarding claim 8, Tell in view of Cho teaches the vacuum generator pump, according to claim 1.
Tell is silent on characterized by the fact that the fourth nozzle has, in its parallel portion, a diameter between 22 and 295 mm, and in its divergent portion, maximum diameter between 25 and 330 mm, angle of divergence between 1 and 5 degrees.
Tell-2015 evidences that in any multi-stage vacuum pump of this type, the nozzles are It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the diameter of the nozzle at the claimed range is a result effective variable to “meet volume and pressure requirements” as taught by Tell-2015 (par 0004). A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range of diameters (15-210 mm) of the nozzle is obvious because it can be selected to meet volume and pressure requirements as taught by the prior art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the maximum diameter in relation to the diameter of the nozzle at the inlet is a result effective variable to “determine the flow rate of the nozzle” as taught by Tell-2015 (par 0074). A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range of maximum diameters (17- 240mm) in relation to the diameter of the nozzle (15-210 mm) creates an obvious ratio that is selected to make a desired flow rate for volume and pressure requirements as taught by the prior art.
Ikeda teaches a nozzle divergence angle between 1.75-3.25 degrees for reduced friction in a three dimensional ejector (par 0048).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Tell by adding Ikeda’s diverging portion (Ikeda, par 0048) with an angle of divergence preferably between 0.5 and 3.5 degrees (Ikeda, 1.75-3.25 degrees, par 0048) in order to reduce friction that prevents vacuum from forming in an ejector jet.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tell in view of Cho in view of Tell-2015.
Claim 6, Tell in view of Cho teaches the vacuum generator pump, according to claim 1.
Tell is silent on characterized in that the second nozzle has an internal diameter between 10 and 160 mm.
Tell-2015 evidences that in any multi-stage vacuum pump of this type, the nozzles are tailored either to produce high-volume flow but not achieve as high a pressure, or that they are tailored for low-volume flow but a higher pressure (par 0003), and that the nozzles must be sized for sufficient volume flow rate to create said vacuum, and while creating a desired pressure differential (par 0004); where the ratio of the diameters of the nozzle at its inlet and outlet end determine the flow rate of the nozzle (par 0074).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the diameter of the nozzle at the claimed range is a result effective variable to “meet volume and pressure requirements” as taught by Tell-2015 (par 0004). A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range of diameters (15-210 mm) of the nozzle is obvious because it can be selected to meet volume and pressure requirements as taught by the prior art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tell in view of Cho in view of Onishi (US 2017/0152868).
Regarding claim 9, Tell in view of Cho teaches the multi-ejector vacuum generator for vacuum generating pump, according to claim 1.
Tell does not disclose characterized in that
the distance between the distal surface of the first nozzle and the proximal surface of the second nozzle is between 2 and 40 mm,
the distance between the distal surface of the second nozzle and the proximal surface of the third nozzle is between 2 and 55 mm, and
the distance between the distal surface of the third nozzle and the proximal surface of the fourth nozzle is between 4 and 80 mm.
Onishi teaches that in a multi-stage ejector unit that vacuum flow depends on factors such as the distance between ejector units, where the vacuum flow of the ejector is regulated by regulating the distance between ejectors (par 0048).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to regulate the distance between the nozzles of Tell as a result effective variable which controls the vacuum flow of the multi-stage ejector as taught by Onishi. A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range for distances between the first nozzle and the second nozzle, and the second nozzle and the third nozzle and the third nozzle and the fourth nozzle is obvious because they are distances that are regulated to meet vacuum flow requirements in a multi-stage ejector as taught by the prior art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tell in view of Cho in view of Tell-2015 in view of Cirrito (US 4609328) in view of Stolberg (GB 2207952).
Regarding claim 10, Tell in view of Cho teaches the vacuum generator pump according to claim 1, wherein the multi-ejector vacuum generator is configured by the following steps;
Determining an intended free vacuum flow to atmosphere (Tell, a high vacuum flow through the slot located between the nozzles, c 1 ln 20, c 2 ln 45-53; it a high vacuum flow for transportation or lifting, c 1 ln 30-45)
Determining a capacity of the vacuum generator pump (Tell, the pressure difference caused by the pump is a result desired design target of the pump, abstract);
Determining an expected vacuum level in the multi-ejector vacuum generator (Tell, under a BRI a desired pressure difference meets the plain meaning of expected vacuum level.);
Tell is silent on:
…
Calculating a diameter of the first nozzle based on the determined capacity;
…
Determining a supersonic speed in the first nozzle;
Calculating a diameter of the first nozzle, based on a vacuum level defined in a first chamber;
Calculating a minimum distance between the first nozzle and the second nozzle;
Determining a supersonic speed in the second nozzle;
Calculating a receiver diameter of the second nozzle, based on a vacuum level defined in a second chamber;
Calculating a minimum distance between the second nozzle and the third nozzle;
Determining a supersonic speed in the third nozzle;
Calculating a receiver diameter of the third nozzle, based on the vacuum level defined in the third chamber;
Calculating a minimum distance between the third nozzle and fourth nozzle;
Determining a supersonic speed in the fourth nozzle;
Calculating a receiver diameter of the fourth nozzle, based on a vacuum level of the multi-ejector vacuum generator.
Tell-2015 evidences that in any multi-stage vacuum pump of this type, the nozzles are tailored either to produce high-volume flow but not achieve as high a pressure, or that they are tailored for low-volume flow but a higher pressure (par 0003), and that the nozzles must be sized for sufficient volume flow rate to create said vacuum, and while creating a desired pressure differential (par 0004); where the ratio of the diameters of the nozzle at its inlet and outlet end determine the flow rate of the nozzle (par 0074).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the diameter of the nozzle at the claimed range is a result effective variable to “meet volume and pressure requirements” as taught by Tell-2015 (par 0004). A claimed parameter is result-effective when it is a variable which achieves a recognized result (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). In this case, the claimed range of diameters of the nozzle is obvious because it can be selected to meet volume and pressure requirements as taught by the prior art.
As a result of the combination Tell in view of Cho in view of Tell-2015 makes obvious the steps of :
calculating a diameter of the first nozzle based on the determined capacity;
Calculating a diameter of the first nozzle, based on a vacuum level defined in a first chamber;
Calculating a receiver diameter of the second nozzle, based on a vacuum level defined in a second chamber;
Calculating a receiver diameter of the third nozzle, based on the vacuum level defined in the third chamber;
Calculating a receiver diameter of the fourth nozzle, based on a vacuum level of the multi-ejector vacuum generator.
Cirrito teaches a jet pump ejector where the supersonic speed through the throat of a nozzle is a result effective variable for mass flow according to the Fliegner equation (c 16 ln 40-50); where the flow of the primary supersonic fluid pumps a secondary fluid from a lower pressure flow from a right angle which mixes with the first flow (c 33 ln 5-23), where the calculation of mass flow determines the ultimate available energy for the pump system to provide the desired flow (abstract, c 1 ln 10-25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the design steps of Tell by adding a supersonic speed determining step as taught by Cirrito for the predictable result of determining available energy to the pump system, and ensuring the pump system includes sufficient energy and mass flow in order to meet desired free vacuum flow and capacity requirements.
As a result of the combination Tell in view of Cho in view of Tell-2015 in view of Cirrito makes obvious the steps of:
Determining a supersonic speed in the first nozzle;
Determining a supersonic speed in the second nozzle;
Determining a supersonic speed in the third nozzle;
Determining a supersonic speed in the fourth nozzle;
Stolberg teaches a jet pump ejector where the axial spacing between nozzles determines the flow rate of the mixing liquid (abstract.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the design steps of Tell by adding an axial spacing step taught by Stolberg for the predictable result of determining flow rate of entrained gas at each stage, and thereby ensuring the pump system is able to meet the desired free vacuum flow and capacity requirements.
As a result of the combination Tell in view of Cho in view of Tell-2015 in view of Cirrito in view of Stolberg makes obvious the steps of:
Calculating a minimum distance between the first nozzle and the second nozzle;
Calculating a minimum distance between the second nozzle and the third nozzle;
Calculating a minimum distance between the third nozzle and fourth nozzle;
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments regarding the objections and 112 rejections are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The previous objections and 112 rejections are withdrawn. However, the amendments have introduced issues requiring a new 112 rejection.
On page 13 of the remarks, Applicant asserts that the art of record does not disclose the material amended to claim 10.
Applicant argues that conventional practice uses iterative experimentation to reach desired vacuum levels; and that computation-based engineering design is not taught or suggested by the prior art. New art has been added to the rejection which shows the claimed calculation to mathematically determine nozzle diameters, axial spacing between nozzles, and supersonic speeds in order to reach the intended flow rate, pump capacity, and desired pressure as a predictable result.
On page 13 applicant argues that conventionally four narrow tubes are used by global manufactures to reach desired vacuum flow, and that they add multiple sets of tubes in parallel to scale the desired vacuum. Applicant argues that their system is different because they use the four tubes but employ larger diameters to reduce components.
Applicant’s argument is not convincing, and is arguing unclaimed subject matter, applicant has not claimed specific diameters or flow rates outside of the norm. Applicant’s claim 10 recites the conventional four tubes, which creates vacuum in several stages as is known in the art. The rejection has added teaching references to address the conventional teachings of using diameter, supersonic speed, and axial spacing to reach desired flow rates and pressures.
Pg 14, Applicant further argues that their single optimized ejector exhibits lower air consumption compared to competitors assemblies of multiple small-diameter parallel tubes. Applicant is arguing unclaimed subject matter. Applicant has claimed the steps of determining a conventional four nozzle multi-ejector vacuum generator, which applicant has acknowledged as conventional. Applicant has not claimed features which restricts the steps to a single multi-ejector vacuum generator as argued.
Furthermore, there are no calculation steps which specify that the multi-ejector vacuum generator has a larger flow rates as argued. Applicant’s conventional configuration steps would apply equally as likely to a single small-diameter multi-tube pump with a smaller capacity. Applicant has claimed no features which
Applicant argument of using larger, mathematically optimized diameters resulting in higher efficiency for the same target vacuum level and free-flow rate is not claimed. In order for features to be distinguishing they must be claimed.
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746