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 January 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. The previous objections to claims 12-14 are withdrawn in light of the Applicant's amendment to claim 12.
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 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: the monitoring of the pressure values in claims 1, 7, 12 and 15.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0064222 to Takaoka.
Referring to claim 1, Takaoka discloses a method of handling a gear pump (64), the gear pump (64) including a driving gear wheel (645) having a plurality of driving teeth and a driven gear wheel (646) having a plurality of driven teeth meshing with the driving teeth (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031]-[0035]), the method comprising:
controlling the gear pump (64) in a testing mode comprising commanding driving of the gear pump (64) to pump liquid (urea) towards a downstream device (62) and commanding an increase of rotational speed of the gear pump (64) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]);
monitoring rotation values indicative of the rotational speeds during the testing mode (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]);
monitoring pressure values by means of at least a downstream pressure sensor (67) during the testing mode, the downstream pressure sensor (67) being arranged to measure a downstream pressure of the liquid (urea) between the gear pump (64) and the downstream device (62) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]); and
determining at least one operational condition of the gear pump (64) based on the pressure values and the rotation values (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]).
Referring to claim 2, Takaoka discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further discloses a method comprising:
monitoring pressure difference values indicative of pressure differences over the gear pump (64), the pressure difference values being determined based on the pressure values; and determining the at least one operational condition of the gear pump (64) based on the rotation value when the pressure difference value reaches a target pressure difference value (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0066]-[0080] and [0096]).
Referring to claim 3, Takaoka discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further discloses a method wherein:
the at least one operational condition comprises a leakage of the gear pump (64), a misalignment between the driving gear wheel (645) and the driven gear wheel (646), and/or a defect of one of the driving teeth and the driven teeth (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]).
Referring to claim 4, Takaoka discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further discloses a method comprising:
controlling the gear pump (64) in an operational mode comprising commanding driving of the gear pump (64) to pump liquid through the downstream device (62) while controlling the gear pump (64) to automatically compensate for the at least one operational condition (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0066]-[0080] and [0137]).
Referring to claim 6, Takaoka discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further discloses a method wherein:
the downstream device (62) is a downstream valve, and wherein the downstream valve is closed during the testing mode (at least during S1 and S2) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0066]-[0080] and [0137]).
Referring to claim 7, Takaoka discloses a control system (200) for handling a gear pump (64), the gear pump (64) including a driving gear wheel (645) having a plurality of driving teeth and a driven gear wheel (646) having a plurality of driven teeth meshing with the driving teeth, the control system (200) comprising at least one data processing device (204) and at least one memory (202, 203) having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program including program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device (204), causes the at least one data processing device (204) to perform the steps of (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031]-[0035]):
controlling the gear pump (64) in a testing mode including commanding driving of the gear pump (64) to pump liquid (urea) towards a downstream device (62) and commanding an increase of rotational speed of the gear pump (64) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]);
providing rotation values indicative of the rotational speeds during the testing mode (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]);
providing pressure values monitored by means of at least a downstream pressure sensor (67) during the testing mode, the downstream pressure sensor (67) being arranged to measure a downstream pressure of the liquid (urea) between the gear pump (64) and the downstream device (62) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]); and
determining at least one operational condition of the gear pump (64) based on the pressure values and the rotation values (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]).
Referring to claim 8, Takaoka discloses a control system comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, and further discloses wherein the computer program comprises includes program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device (204), causes the at least one data processing device (204) to perform the steps of:
providing pressure difference values indicative of pressure differences over the gear pump (64), the pressure difference values being determined based on the pressure values; and determining the at least one operational condition of the gear pump (64) based on the rotation value when the pressure difference value reaches a target pressure difference value (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0066]-[0080] and [0096]).
Referring to claim 9, Takaoka discloses a control system comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, and further discloses a control system wherein:
the at least one operational condition comprises a leakage of the gear pump (64), a misalignment between the driving gear wheel (645) and the driven gear wheel (646), and/or a defect of one of the driving teeth and the driven teeth (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]).
Referring to claim 10, Takaoka discloses a control system comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, and further discloses wherein the computer program comprises includes program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device (204), causes the at least one data processing device (204) to perform the steps of:
controlling the gear pump (64) in an operational mode comprising commanding driving of the gear pump (64) to pump liquid through the downstream device (62) while controlling the gear pump (64) to automatically compensate for the at least one operational condition (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0066]-[0080] and [0137]).
Referring to claim 16, Takaoka discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and further discloses a method wherein:
the at least one operational condition comprises a leakage of the gear pump (64), a misalignment between the driving gear wheel (645) and the driven gear wheel (646), and/or a defect of one of the driving teeth and the driven teeth (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]).
Referring to claim 17, Takaoka discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and further discloses a method comprising:
controlling the gear pump (64) in an operational mode comprising commanding driving of the gear pump (64) to pump liquid through the downstream device (62) while controlling the gear pump (64) to automatically compensate for the at least one operational condition (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0066]-[0080] and [0137]).
Referring to claim 19, Takaoka discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and further discloses a method wherein:
the downstream device (62) is a downstream valve, and wherein the downstream valve is closed during the testing mode (at least during S1 and S2) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0066]-[0080] and [0137]).
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 5, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0064222 to Takaoka in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0325348 to Heitz.
Referring to claim 5, Takaoka teaches a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but is silent as to the issuing of a warning based on the detected operational condition. Heitz teaches a method comprising:
automatically issuing a warning based on the at least one operational condition (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Takaoka with the warning taught by Heitz in order to inform the user of the operation condition.
Referring to claim 11, Takaoka teaches a control system comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, and further discloses wherein the computer program comprises includes program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device (204), causes the at least one data processing device (204) to perform the steps of:
automatically issuing a warning based on the at least one operational condition (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the control system taught by Takaoka with the warning taught by Heitz in order to inform the user of the operation condition.
Referring to claim 18, Takaoka teaches a method comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but is silent as to the issuing of a warning based on the detected operational condition. Heitz teaches a method comprising:
automatically issuing a warning based on the at least one operational condition (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Takaoka with the warning taught by Heitz in order to inform the user of the operation condition.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2022/0168769 to Rodrigues in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0064222 to Takaoka.
Referring to claim 12, Rodrigues teaches an apparatus (10) for applying a coating medium to an object, the apparatus (10) comprising a gear pump (75) (Fig. 12; paragraph [0074]). Rodrigues is silent as to the details of the gear pump.
Takaoka discloses an apparatus comprising a downstream device (62), a downstream pressure sensor (67) and a control system (200) for handling the gear pump (75), for handling a gear pump (64), the gear pump (64) including a driving gear wheel (645) having a plurality of driving teeth and a driven gear wheel (646) having a plurality of driven teeth meshing with the driving teeth, the control system (200) comprising at least one data processing device (204) and at least one memory (202, 203) having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program including program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device (204), causes the at least one data processing device (204) to perform the steps of (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031]-[0035]):
controlling the gear pump (64) in a testing mode including commanding driving of the gear pump (64) to pump liquid (urea) towards a downstream device (62) and commanding an increase of rotational speed of the gear pump (64) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]);
providing rotation values indicative of the rotational speeds during the testing mode (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]);
providing pressure values monitored by means of at least a downstream pressure sensor (67) during the testing mode, the downstream pressure sensor (67) being arranged to measure a downstream pressure of the liquid (urea) between the gear pump (64) and the downstream device (62) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]); and
determining at least one operational condition of the gear pump (64) based on the pressure values and the rotation values (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the apparatus taught by Rodrigues with the gear pump taught by Takaoka in order to provide a gear pump for pumping the coating medium.
Referring to claim 13, Rodrigues and Takaoka teach an apparatus (10) for applying a coating medium to an object comprising all the limitations of claim 12, but Rodrigues is silent as to the details of the gear pump. Takaoka further teaches wherein:
the downstream device (62) is a downstream valve, wherein the computer program comprises program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device (204), causes the at least one data processing device (204) to perform the step of:
commanding closing of the downstream valve during the testing mode (at least during S1 and S2) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0066]-[0080] and [0137]).
Referring to claim 14, Rodrigues and Takaoka teach an apparatus (10) for applying a coating medium to an object comprising all the limitations of claim 13, and Rodrigues further teaches an apparatus comprising:
a coating medium line (71) for supplying the coating medium, wherein the gear pump (75) is arranged on the coating medium line (71) (Fig. 12; paragraph [0074]).
Rodrigues is silent as to the details of the gear pump, but as detailed above, Takaoka teaches a gear pump comprising the downstream device (62) and the downstream pressure sensor (67) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031]-[0035], wherein in the combination above, the downstream device and the downstream pressure sensor would be with the gear pump in the coating medium line as claimed).
Referring to claim 15, Rodrigues teaches a robot system (1) comprising an industrial robot and an apparatus for applying a coating medium to an object, the apparatus comprising a gear pump. Rodrigues is silent as to the details of the gear pump.
Takaoka discloses an apparatus comprising a gear pump (64), a downstream device (62), a downstream pressure sensor (67) and a control system (200) for handling the gear pump (75), for handling the gear pump (64), the gear pump (64) including a driving gear wheel (645) having a plurality of driving teeth and a driven gear wheel (646) having a plurality of driven teeth meshing with the driving teeth, the control system (200) comprising at least one data processing device (204) and at least one memory (202, 203) having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program including program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device (204), causes the at least one data processing device (204) to perform the steps of (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031]-[0035]):
controlling the gear pump (64) in a testing mode including commanding driving of the gear pump (64) to pump liquid (urea) towards a downstream device (62) and commanding an increase of rotational speed of the gear pump (64) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]);
providing rotation values indicative of the rotational speeds during the testing mode (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]);
providing pressure values monitored by means of at least a downstream pressure sensor (67) during the testing mode, the downstream pressure sensor (67) being arranged to measure a downstream pressure of the liquid (urea) between the gear pump (64) and the downstream device (62) (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]); and
determining at least one operational condition of the gear pump (64) based on the pressure values and the rotation values (Figures 1, 2A, 2B and 3; paragraphs [0031], [0033] and [0066]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the apparatus taught by Rodrigues with the gear pump taught by Takaoka in order to provide a gear pump for pumping the coating medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Takaoka does not teach the determining of an operating condition of the pump based on the measured pressure and rotational values. Remarks 3. However, in steps S2-S5, in at least paragraphs [0068]-[0080], Takaoka teaches that the control unit “judges” the acquired pressure at the measured rotational speed to determine if the pressure has changed and if the speed is correct, both of which are operating conditions of the pump as claimed. The Examiner also notes that the conditions downstream of the pump impact the conditions of the pump and are therefore conditions of the pump also. If the injector valve is stuck open or closed, it will change the operation of the gear pump upstream which is pumping fluid through the injector valve. Takaoka teaches the use of pressure values as inputs in at least steps S2 and S4.
The Applicant argues that Takaoka does not teach the monitoring of pressure difference values indicative of pressure differences over the gear pump. Remarks 6. However, since the pressure on the suction side of the pump is constant, monitoring pressure difference values registered by the sensor 67 on the discharge is indicative of the pressure differences over the gear pump as claimed.
The Applicant argues that Takaoka does not teach an operating condition of the gear pump being caused by leakage, misalignment or tooth defects. Remarks 6. However, Takaoka discusses the impact and adjusts the calculated pump flow for gear top clearances, which are a form of misalignment or tooth defect as claimed.
The Applicant argues that Takaoka does not teach the automatic compensation for an operating condition. Remarks 6-7. However, since Takaoka accounts for the gear top clearances, Takaoka automatically compensates for misalignment and tooth defects as claimed. Furthermore, the adjustment of the rotational speed also compensates for the operating conditions of leakage, misalignment and tooth defects as claimed.
The Applicant argues that the injector 62 of Takaoka is not a valve as recited in claim 6. Remarks 7. However, in paragraph [0033] Takaoka explicitly states that injector 62 is a needle valve.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights