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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 9-18 & 20-23 are pending in the application. Claims 1-6 & 9-15 are withdrawn. Claims 7-8 & 19 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are entered as “New”.
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted Claims 1-6 & 9-15 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-6 & 9-15, drawn to a component for a fluid end, classified in F04B53/16.
II. Claims 16-18 & 20-23, drawn to a fluid end / reciprocating pump, classified in F04B1/0538.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination (the fluid end / reciprocating pump) and subcombination (the component). Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination (the fluid end / reciprocating pump) only requires one groove around one coupler opening. The subcombination has separate utility such as used in place of the fluid end plate (504) of fluid end (500) in Nowell (U.S. PGPub 2020/0182240). See Nowell Figure 55.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct groups as set forth above because the groupings require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claims 1-6 & 9-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 21 & 23 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 17 should read --The fluid end of claim 16, further comprising:
a component that is removably coupled to the fluid end body; and
a coupling element that engages the coupler opening to at least partially secure the component to the fluid end body.--; alternatively, Applicant may amend Claim 16 to change coupling element to coupler
Claim 21 should read --The reciprocating pump of claim 20, further comprising: a coupling element that engages the coupler opening to at least partially secure the fluid end body to the power end.--; alternatively, Applicant may amend Claim 16 to change coupling element to coupler
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“coupling element” in Claims 16 & 20, where the generic placeholder is “element”, the functional language is “coupling”, and sufficient modifying structure has not been provided; instant application Paragraph 0028 defines a coupling element as “a stud, a bolt, a tie rod, etc.”, providing sufficient modifying structure
“reciprocating element” in Claims 16 & 20, where the generic placeholder is “element”, the functional language is “reciprocating”, and sufficient modifying structure has not been provided; instant application Paragraph 002 defines a reciprocating element as “pistons”, providing sufficient modifying structure
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 16-18 & 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowell (U.S. PGPub 2020/0182240), in view of Masami (JP59182680 – see translation at end of attached reference).
As to Claim 16, Nowell teaches a fluid end (500) for (Paragraph 0321) a reciprocating pump (Figures 7/8), comprising:
a fluid end body (502; see Figure 55) configured to guide a fluid (Paragraphs 0301/0321) from an inlet bore (see Nowell Figure 60 below) to an outlet bore (see Nowell Figure 60 below) as a power end (34) drives motion of (Paragraph 0274) a reciprocating element (see Nowell Figure 60 below) in or adjacent (as shown in Figure 60) a reciprocation bore (508) of the fluid end body (502), the fluid end body (502) including a coupler opening (516; Paragraph 0322) disposed on (as shown in Figure 60) an external surface (507) of the fluid end body (502)…a coupling element (42/564) installed therein (coupling element 564 is installed within coupler opening 515, as shown in Figure 60).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nowell Figure 60, Modified by Examiner
Nowell does not teach a groove comprising a counterbore that extends around the coupler opening at the external surface; and a sealing assembly disposed around the coupler opening, the sealing assembly restricting leaked fluid from entering the coupler opening and corroding a coupling element installed therein.
Masami describes a pump and a means to prevent fluid from leaking onto couplers holding respective casing structures together, and teaches a groove (see Figure 6 below) comprising a counterbore (Figure 6 shows the groove as a counterbore within which compliant member 54 sits) that extends around (as shown in Figure 6) the coupler opening (see Figure 6 below) at the exterior surface (see Figure 6 below); and a sealing assembly (54, where sleeve 54 acts as a seal by being placed between the gap between 30/34 and coupler 50) disposed around (as shown in Figure 6) the coupler opening (see Figure 6 below) disposed on (as shown in Figure 6) the external surface (see Figure 6 below) of the fluid end body (30), the sealing assembly (54) restricting leaked fluid from entering the coupler opening (see Figure 6 below) and corroding a coupling element (50) installed therein (as shown in Figure 6).
The Masami sealing assembly 54 restricts leaked fluid from entering the coupler opening (see Figure 6 below), since the Masami sealing assembly 54 surrounds the Masami coupler 50 and is in contact with the coupler openings, as shown in Masami Figure 6.
PNG
media_image2.png
324
739
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Masami Figure 6, Modified by Examiner
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the groove/seal, as taught by Masami, with coupler/coupler openings, as taught by Nowell, to make centering easy (top of Page 6).
As to Claim 17, Nowell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 16, and continues to teach a component (Nowell 506) that is removably coupled to (via Nowell couplers 564) the fluid end body (Nowell 502); and
a coupler (Nowell 564) that engages (as shown in Nowell Figure 60) the coupler opening (Nowell 516) to at least partially secure (as shown in Nowell Figure 60; Nowell Paragraph 0335) the component (Nowell 506) to the fluid end body (Nowell 502).
As to Claim 18, Nowell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 16-17, and continues to teach the component (Nowell 506) comprises (as shown in Nowell Figure 60) a stuffing box (Nowell 506).
As to Claim 20, Nowell teaches a reciprocating pump (Figures 7/8), comprising:
a power end (34) configured to generate power sufficient for pumping a fluid (Nowell Paragraph 0274);
a fluid end body (502; see Figure 55) configured to guide the fluid (Paragraphs 0301/0321) from an inlet bore (see Nowell Figure 60 in the Claim 16 rejection above) to an outlet bore (see Nowell Figure 60 in the Claim 16 rejection above) as the power end (34) drives motion of (Paragraph 0274) a reciprocating element (see Nowell Figure 60 in the Claim 16 rejection above) in or adjacent (as shown in Figure 60) a reciprocation bore (508) of the fluid end body (502); the fluid end body (502) including a coupler opening (516; Paragraph 0322) disposed on (as shown in Figure 60) an external surface (507) of the fluid end body (502)…a coupling element (42/564) installed therein (coupling element 564 is installed within coupler opening 515, as shown in Figure 60).
Nowell does not teach a groove comprising a counterbore that extends around the coupler opening at the external surface; and a sealing assembly disposed around the coupler opening, the sealing assembly restricting leaked fluid from entering the coupler opening and corroding a coupling element installed therein.
Masami describes a pump and a means to prevent fluid from leaking onto couplers holding respective casing structures together, and teaches a groove (see Masami Figure 6 in the Claim 16 rejection above) comprising a counterbore (Figure 6 shows the groove as a counterbore within which compliant member 54 sits) that extends around (as shown in Figure 6) the coupler opening (see Masami Figure 6 in the Claim 16 rejection above) at the exterior surface (see Masami Figure 6 in the Claim 16 rejection above); and a sealing assembly (54, where sleeve 54 acts as a seal by being placed between the gap between 30/34 and coupler 50) disposed around (as shown in Figure 6) the coupler opening (see Masami Figure 6 in the Claim 16 rejection above) disposed on (as shown in Figure 6) the external surface (see Masami Figure 6 in the Claim 16 rejection above) of the fluid end body (30), the sealing assembly (54) restricting leaked fluid from entering the coupler opening (see Masami Figure 6 in the Claim 16 rejection above) and corroding a coupling element (50) installed therein (as shown in Figure 6).
The Masami sealing assembly 54 restricts leaked fluid from entering the coupler opening (see Masami Figure 6 in the Claim 16 rejection above), since the Masami sealing assembly 54 surrounds the Masami coupler 50 and is in contact with the coupler openings, as shown in Masami Figure 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the groove/seal, as taught by Masami, with coupler/coupler openings, as taught by Nowell, to make centering easy (top of Page 6).
As to Claim 21, Nowell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 20, and continues to teach a coupler (Nowell 564) that engages (as shown in Nowell Figure 60) the coupler opening (Nowell 516) to at least partially secure (since Nowell coupler 564 partially secures Nowell plate 504 to Nowell fluid end body 502, and Nowell plate 504 is connected to Nowell power end 34 via stay rods 42, one of ordinary skill in the art would broadly conclude Nowell coupler 564 partially secures Nowell fluid end body 502 to Nowell power end 34) the fluid end body (Nowell 502) to (as shown in Nowell Figure 15) the power end (Nowell 34). Note Nowell Paragraph 0321 states plate 504 is identical to plate 104, except for a few exceptions described thereafter. How the plate attaches to the stay rods is not one of the exceptions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude plate 504 attaches to stay rods 42 the same way plate 104 attaches to stay rods 42, which is shown in Nowell Figure 15.
As to Claim 22, Nowell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 20, and continues to teach the coupler opening (Nowell 516) is disposed on a rear surface (Nowell 507) of the fluid end body (Nowell 502), a front surface of the fluid end body, a top surface of the fluid end body, or a bottom surface of the fluid end body. Since Nowell, as modified, teaches the first option, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
As to Claim 23, Nowell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 16-17, and continues to teach the coupler opening (Nowell 516) is disposed on a rear surface (Nowell 507) of the fluid end body (Nowell 502), a front surface of the fluid end body, a top surface of the fluid end body, or a bottom surface of the fluid end body. Since Nowell, as modified, teaches the first option, the remaining options do not need to be taught.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant believes each of the independent claims is allowable due to incorporating previously indicated allowable material into each of the independent claims. Examiner disagrees.
The allowable material would have only applied to Claim 1. However, Applicant amended Claim 1 to be a subcombination (a component) of the previously claimed combination (a fluid end body). As such, Claim 1, and all dependent claims were withdrawn due to election by original presentation, preventing Claim 1 from being allowable.
Independent Claims 16 and 20 are also not allowable as described above.
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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783