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 Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on September 17th, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 18th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-7 & 9 have been amended, while Claims 8 & 10 have been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-7 & 9 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
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 “pulsation damper which has at least one pressure sensor” of Claim 1 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 Objections
Claims 1-10 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, rendering the objections moot.
Claims 1-7 & 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 should read “cylinder, the high-pressure cylinder having a high-pressure plunger that can be moved therein by a drivesuch that a high-pressure fluid”
Claim 1, line 4 should read “high-pressure line, the device further”
Claim 1, lines 7-8 should read “wherein comprises an electric linear motor with a stator and a forcer”
Claim 1, line 12 should read “control unit when the high-pressure plunger reaches”
Claim 7, line 9 should read “cylinder and being configured to control”
Claim 9, line 4 should read “pressure fluid line, wherein under the condition”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 were 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. Applicant’s amendments have remedied most of these issues, but problems remain.
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 1-6 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 now recites “a pulsation damper which has at least one pressure sensor”; this limitation constitutes new matter that does not find basis in the originally filed specification nor the supplied figures. There is simply no disclosure of pulsation damper 20 having (i.e. including) a pressure sensor. At best, the specification and figures describe and depict a pressure sensor 21, which is disposed entirely separate from and downstream of the pulsation damper 20. Thus, Applicant’s recitation that the pulsation damper “has” at least one pressure sensor clearly constitutes new matter that is not supported by the originally filed specification.
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 1-7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 5 recites “a pulsation damper which has at least one pressure sensor for controlling the drive”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the particular arrangement of the invention cannot be discerned. At the outset, the Examiner respectfully notes that neither the specification nor the supplied figures disclose, support, or depict the pulsation damper 20 having at least one pressure sensor, as now claimed (see also the drawing objection and 112(a) rejection above). At best, the specification and figures describe and depict pressure sensor 21, which is disposed entirely separate from and downstream of the pulsation damper 20. Thus, when Applicant recites that the pulsation damper “has” at least one pressure sensor, ambiguity arises as to what is truly meant by this language. As far as the examiner understands the invention, it is the “device” of Claim 1 as a whole that “has” the “at least one pressure sensor”, but the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent here. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as requiring the “device” of Claim 1 to be the element that “has” the “at least one pressure sensor”.
Claim 1, line 11 recites “at least one sensor”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation 1) refers back to the “at least one pressure sensor” recited earlier in the claim or 2) introduces different pressure sensors altogether. Given the examiner’s understanding of the invention, it appears that both of the “at least one sensor” refer to the same element(s). As such, for purposes of examination herein, the former interpretation is used. If the Examiner’s understanding is correct, it appears that “at least one sensor” of line 11 should be entirely deleted from the claim.
Claim 4, lines 5-6 recite “wherein each of the first high-pressure cylinder and the second high-pressure cylinder further comprises a second high-pressure plunger”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required arrangement cannot be discerned. In this instance, it is entirely unclear how (or if) both high-pressure cylinders would comprise a second high-pressure plunger, as claimed. As far as the examiner understands the invention, each high-pressure cylinder contains a single high-pressure piston, but this is not at all what is claimed. As such, the scope of Claim 4 cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as requiring the second high-pressure cylinder to comprise a second high-pressure plunger.
Claim 5, line 1 recites “two apparatuses”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is wholly unclear if (or how) these “apparatuses” are different from the “device” recited in Claim 1.
Claim 5, line 2 recites “the electric linear motors”; this renders the claim indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for multiple electric linear motors. At most, Claims 1 & 4 merely require a single electric linear motor. Thus, the scope of Claim 5 cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as requiring a single electric linear motor.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the method parameters" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, there are no “method parameters” previously recited in Claim 7, and it is not clear whether these “method parameters” are 1) attempting to refer back to the “parameters” in line 2 or 2) introducing additional parameters altogether. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted using the first interpretation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "under the condition that the control unit operates the electric linear motor in different phases with the servo converter while the second pressure generator conveys high-pressure fluid, the high-pressure cylinder is filled and pressure is built up in the fluid in the first pressure generator such that at an end of the pressure phase in the first pressure generator conveys fluid, and a pressure drop in the high-pressure fluid line is prevented" in lines 8-9; this limitation renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. At the outset, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the pressure phase” in the claim. In this case, there has been no previously mentioned “pressure phase”, and as such, it is wholly unclear what element of the invention this “phase” is even linked to. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as “a pressure phase”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 & 9 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments (see below).
In regards to Applicant’s assertion that “the Office asserts that col. 9, lines 18 — 21 and col. 13, lines 41 — 58 of Kottke teach the subject matter of claim 8. After review, Applicant respectfully disagrees that the Kottke reference describes the aforementioned amendments to claim 1. Specifically, the Office assert that the feature previously recited in claim 8 of “a starting position for a maximum compression stroke” is interpreted as optional and not further limiting. Again, without conceding that propriety of the Office’s assertion that the limitation is to be interpreted as merely optional, independent claim 1 has been amended herein to include the subject matter of claim 8, with the subject matter of claim 8 being additionally amended to further clarify that the limitation is not merely optional. Instead, it 1s respectfully submitted that Kottke is simply silent to the aforementioned amendments to claim 1. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that Kottke does not describe that the Office- asserted “forcer” moves the plunger into a different position at an increased speed. Instead, it is respectfully submitted that Kottke is simply silent to the aforementioned amendments to claim 1. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Kottke does not describe each and every element of amended independent claim 1, and thus reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested. Furthermore, claims 2 and 7 depend directly or indirectly from amended independent claim 1, and thus withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejection of claims 2 and 7 is also respectfully requested”, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. At the outset, Claim 1 has been substantially amended to the point that new prior art rejections are necessary to address the new claim scope now being recited in Claim 1. Thus, in view of the new prior art rejections found below, Applicant’s arguments directed towards the previous prior art rejections are rendered moot. Regarding Claim 7, Applicant alleges that Claim 7 depends from Claim 1, but respectfully, this is simply incorrect. Claim 7 stands alone as an independent claim, and does not depend from any other claim. As it relates to Claim 7 specifically, Kottke continues to disclose the limitations of amended Claim 7, including the newly added limitations. Please refer to the updated rejection below for further details.
In regards to Applicant’s assertion that “the Office assert that the feature previously recited in claim 8 of “a starting position for a maximum compression stroke” is interpreted as optional and not further limiting. Again, without conceding that propriety of the Office’s assertion that the limitation is to be interpreted as merely optional, independent claim 1 has been amended herein to include the subject matter of claim 8, with the subject matter of claim 8 being additionally amended to further clarify that the limitation is not merely optional. Instead, it is respectfully submitted that Reidel is also silent to the aforementioned amendments to claim 1.Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that Reidel does not describe that the Office- asserted “forcer” moves the plunger into a different position at an increased speed. Instead, it is respectfully submitted that Reidel is simply silent to the aforementioned amendments to claim 1.As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Reidel does not describe each and every element of amended independent claim 1, and thus reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested. Furthermore, claims 2 — 7 and 9 depend directly or indirectly from amended independent claim 1”, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. At the outset, Claim 1 has been substantially amended to the point that new prior art rejections are necessary to address the new claim scope now being recited in Claim 1. Thus, in view of the new prior art rejections found below, Applicant’s arguments directed towards the previous prior art rejections are rendered moot. Regarding Claim 7, Applicant alleges that Claim 7 depends from Claim 1, but respectfully, this is simply incorrect. Claim 7 stands alone as an independent claim, and does not depend from any other claim. As it relates to Claim 7 specifically, Riedel continues to disclose the limitations of amended Claim 7, including the newly added limitations. Please refer to the updated rejection below for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,506,030 to Kottke.
In regards to independent Claim 7, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Kottke discloses:
7. A method for supplying high-pressure fluid (“liquids”; col. 1, line 20) within variable parameters (“environments where liquid flow rate is low (e.g., less than 15 gpm) and the required liquid pressure rise is high (e.g., greater than 500 psi)”; col. 1, lines 26-29) to an apparatus (“boiler”; col. 22, lines 37-40) through the use of at least one pressure generator (Fig. 1 clearly depicts a pressure generator 10) that has a high-pressure cylinder (14) and a high-pressure plunger (12) that moves therein, characterized in that the high-pressure plunger is moved by an electric linear motor (52, 64) having a stator (52) and a forcer (62), wherein the method parameters are regulated by a control unit (60), wherein the control unit comprises a power supply (implicit), a servo converter for the electric linear motor (“software program”; col. 12, line 64), and a programmable computer (“microprocessor”; col. 13, line 64-65) having measurement inputs for at least a fluid pressure (via sensor 306; Fig. 4) and a position of the high-pressure plunger in the high-pressure cylinder (via sensor 72; Fig. 1) and is configured to control the servo converter (col. 12, line 44 – col. 13, line 58; col. 21, lines 30-50); wherein the high-pressure plunger sends a signal (73) to the control unit (col. 13, lines 41-46) when high-pressure plunger reaches a predefined depth in the high-pressure cylinder (this reads upon any designated position in the cylinder, including the end points/limits of the strokes; col. 13, lines 41-46 and col. 9, lines 18-21 makes clear that the position is monitored throughout the piston stroke, while col. 6, lines 43-65 make clear that the entirety of the suction and discharge stroke cycles are actively controlled; finally, col. 14, lines 44-46 clearly disclose “proximal and distal limits of reciprocation”, which are predefined depths of the plunger in the cylinder that are monitored by the position sensor), and further wherein the servo converter is controlled such that the forcer in the linear motor moves the high-pressure plunger at a high speed to a starting position for a maximum pressure stroke (col. 12, line 57 – col. 13, line 6 make clear that the piston stroke is controlled by the servo converter (i.e. software program) of the microprocessor, and col. 16, lines 37-56 makes clear that the piston velocity is controlled in order to provide a fast dispensing stroke to a starting position for a maximum pressure stroke (i.e. moving the piston at a high speed to the distal limit of reciprocation provides a maximum pressure stroke that also represents a starting position of a subsequent suction stroke).
Claim(s) 7 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 19840809 to Riedel.
In regards to independent Claim 7, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Riedel discloses:
7. A method for supplying high-pressure fluid (“test fluid”; para. 9) within variable parameters (“impulse pressure testing”; “test pressures”; “hydraulic flow”; paras. 2, 9) to an apparatus (“a circuit arrangement for dynamic pulse pressure testing of fluidic components using capacitive energies”; para. 9) through the use of at least one pressure generator (Fig. 1 clearly depicts a pressure generator 1-8) that has a high-pressure cylinder (4, 5) and a high-pressure plunger (7, 8) that moves therein, characterized in that the high-pressure plunger is moved by an electric linear motor (1, 2) having a stator (1) and a forcer (2) (Fig. 1), wherein the method parameters are regulated by a control unit (19), wherein the control unit comprises a power supply (electric power is implicit), a servo converter for the electric linear motor (a servo converter is implicit to an electric linear motor drive), and a programmable computer (embodied by control system 19) having measurement inputs for at least a fluid pressure (via pressure sensors 16, 17) and a position of the high-pressure plunger in the high-pressure cylinder (via position sensor 18) and configured to control the servo converter (paras. 17-20); wherein the high-pressure plunger sends a signal (18) to the control unit (see the communication line extending between 18 and 19 in Fig. 1) when high-pressure plunger reaches a predefined depth in the high-pressure cylinder (paras. 18-19 clearly describe monitoring the position of the forcer/plunger during operation, including detecting a “left end position” of the plunger, which is a predefined depth in the cylinder), and further wherein the servo converter is controlled such that the forcer in the linear motor moves the high-pressure plunger at a high speed (i.e. any non-zero speed) to a starting position (“left end position”; para. 19) for a maximum pressure stroke (Riedel’s paras. 18-20 make clear that the piston is moved at a non-zero speed for a maximum pressure stroke (i.e. a stroke that reaches a “prescribed pulse pressure” (i.e. the maximum pressure)).
In regards to Claim 9, Riedel further discloses (within Fig. 1) that the at least one pressure generator includes a first pressure generator (i.e. left pressure generator 5/7) and a second pressure generator (i.e. right pressure generator 4/8), wherein the first pressure generator feeds into a high-pressure fluid line (9), under the condition that the control unit (19) operates the electric linear motor in different phases with the servo converter (para. 19 makes clear that alternating pumping “phases” occur under control of the control system 19), while the second pressure generator conveys high-pressure fluid, the high-pressure cylinder is filled (i.e. expanded to draw in fluid) and pressure is built up in the fluid in the first pressure generator (as described at the second half of para. 19) such that at an end of the pressure phase (see the 112b rejection above; this is interpreted as a pressure phase of the first pressure generator), the first pressure generator conveys fluid, and a pressure drop in the high-pressure fluid line is prevented (para. 19 makes clear that during the pressure phase of the left pressure generator, pressure is built up and maintained in the high pressure line 9).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,506,030 to Kottke in view of US 2016/0108939 to Trieb et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1 & 4, Kottke discloses:
1. A device (Fig. 1; “reciprocating pump”; Abstract) for controlled supply of high-pressure fluid (“liquids”; col. 1, line 20) by means of at least one pressure generator (10) that has a fluid supply and a fluid intake (30) in a high-pressure cylinder (14), which has a high-pressure plunger (12) that can be moved therein by a drive (50), with which a high-pressure fluid is supplied to a high-pressure line (32), which has at least one pressure sensor (306; Fig. 4) for controlling the drive (col. 21, lines 30-50), wherein the at least one pressure generator comprises the drive having an electric linear motor (see the 112b rejection above; drive (50) is constituted by an electric linear motor (52, 62)) with a stator (52) and a forcer (62) for operating the high-pressure plunger in the high-pressure cylinder (col. 12, line 44 – col. 13, line 17), and the electric linear motor is connected with a control unit (60) comprising an electrical power supply (electric power is implicit), a servo converter for the electric linear motor (“software program”; col. 12, line 64), a programmable computer (“microprocessor”; col. 13, line 64-65), and at least one pressure sensor (see the 112b rejection above; 306 clearly forms at least one sensor); wherein the high-pressure plunger sends a signal (73) to the control unit (col. 13, lines 41-46) when high-pressure plunger reaches a predefined depth in the high-pressure cylinder (this reads upon any designated position in the cylinder, including the end points/limits of the strokes; col. 13, lines 41-46 and col. 9, lines 18-21 makes clear that the position is monitored throughout the piston stroke, while col. 6, lines 43-65 make clear that the entirety of the suction and discharge stroke cycles are actively controlled; finally, col. 14, lines 44-46 clearly disclose “proximal and distal limits of reciprocation”, which are predefined depths of the plunger in the cylinder that are monitored by the position sensor), and further wherein the servo converter is controlled such that the forcer in the linear motor moves the high-pressure plunger at a high speed to a starting position for a maximum pressure stroke (col. 12, line 57 – col. 13, line 6 make clear that the piston stroke is controlled by the servo converter (i.e. software program) of the microprocessor, and col. 16, lines 37-56 makes clear that the piston velocity is controlled in order to provide a fast dispensing stroke to a starting position for a maximum pressure stroke (i.e. moving the piston at a high speed to the distal limit of reciprocation provides a maximum pressure stroke that also represents a starting position of a subsequent suction stroke).
While Kottke discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose 1) a pulsation damper or 2) a pressure release valve that can be opened and closed.
However, providing such elements in a reciprocating piston device is vastly well known in the art, as shown by Trieb et al. (Trieb hereinafter). As seen in Figure 1, Trieb discloses another device for controlled supply of high-pressure fluid by means of a pressure generator (2) that has a fluid supply (i.e. the upper pair of check valves in Fig. 1) and a fluid intake (i.e. the lower pair of check valves in Fig. 1) in a high-pressure cylinder (apparent in Fig. 1), which has a high-pressure plunger (apparent in Fig. 1) that can be moved therein by a drive (1, 4), with which a high-pressure fluid is supplied to a high-pressure line (3), further comprising a pulsation damper (31) which has at least one pressure sensor (13, 14; see the 112a/b rejections above) for controlling the drive (para. 46), and further comprises a pressure release valve (32) that can be opened and closed (Fig 1). Trieb goes on to disclose that the at least one pressure generator comprises the drive having a hydraulic linear motor (1, 4; Fig. 1) for operating the high-pressure plunger in the high-pressure cylinder (paras. 44-47), and the hydraulic linear motor is connected with a control unit (15) comprising an electrical power supply (electric power is implicit; see also the left-pointing arrow in Fig. 1 and para. 28), wherein the high-pressure plunger sends a signal (16) to the control unit (Fig. 1; para. 46) when high-pressure plunger reaches a predefined depth in the high-pressure cylinder (this reads upon any designated position in the cylinder; para. 46 makes clear that the position is monitored throughout the piston stroke). While Trieb discloses a hydraulic linear motor instead of an electric linear motor, it is apparent that Trieb and Kottke provide very similar reciprocating piston pressure generators that monitors pressure and piston position via a control unit in order to provide a desired output flow/pressure. Furthermore, Trieb clearly shows the known use of a pulsation damper and pressure release valve in the high pressure line of such a device; both of which are vastly well known in the art of piston pumps for their innate functions of dampening fluid pulsations (thus smoothing output flow) and controlling discharge pressure (thus improving device safety). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a high pressure fluid device with smoother output flow and improved overall system safety, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Trieb in combination with those seen in Kottke in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kottke’s high pressure line 32 with the pulsation damper 31 and pressure release valve 32 of Trieb in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a safer high-pressure pump with a smoother output flow.
In regards to Claim 2, Kottke’s high-pressure plunger is configured for movement by the electric linear motor, such that the high-pressure plunger is positioned for a programmed and controllable high-pressure stroke (described in detail above for Claim 1).
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19840809 to Riedel in view of US 2016/0108939 to Trieb et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-2, Riedel discloses:
1. A device (Fig. 1) for controlled supply of high-pressure fluid (“test fluid”; para. 9) by means of at least one pressure generator (“pressure generator”; para. 1) that has a fluid supply (fluid supply tank seen, but not labeled, in Fig. 1) and a fluid intake (14, 15) in a high-pressure cylinder (4, 5), which has a high-pressure plunger (7, 8) that can be moved therein by a drive (1, 2), with which a high-pressure fluid is supplied to a high-pressure line (9, 10), which has at least one pressure sensor (16, 17) for controlling the drive (para. 18), wherein the at least one pressure generator comprises the drive having an electric linear motor (drive (1, 2) is constituted by an electric linear motor) with a stator (1) and a forcer (2) for operating the high-pressure plunger in the high-pressure cylinder (paras. 17-19), and the electric linear motor is connected with a control unit (19) comprising an electrical power supply (electric power is implicit), a servo converter for the electric linear motor (a servo converter is implicit to a linear motor drive), a programmable computer (embodied by control system 19), and at least one pressure sensor (see the 112b rejection above; 16 & 17 clearly form at least one pressure sensor); wherein the high-pressure plunger sends a signal (18) to the control unit (see the communication line extending between 18 and 19 in Fig. 1) when high-pressure plunger reaches a predefined depth in the high-pressure cylinder (paras. 18-19 clearly describe monitoring the position of the forcer/plunger during operation, including detecting a “left end position” of the plunger, which is a predefined depth in the cylinder), and further wherein the servo converter is controlled such that the forcer in the linear motor moves the high-pressure plunger at a high speed (i.e. any non-zero speed) to a starting position (“left end position”; para. 19) for a maximum pressure stroke (Riedel’s paras. 18-20 make clear that the piston is moved at a non-zero speed for a maximum pressure stroke (i.e. a stroke that provides the “prescribed pulse pressure” (i.e. the maximum pressure))
While Riedel discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose 1) a pulsation damper or 2) a pressure release valve that can be opened and closed.
However, providing such elements in a reciprocating piston device is vastly well known in the art, as shown by Trieb et al. (Trieb hereinafter). As seen in Figure 1, Trieb discloses another device very similar to that of Riedel, and which is likewise for controlled supply of high-pressure fluid by means of a pressure generator (2) that has a fluid supply (i.e. the upper pair of check valves in Fig. 1) and a fluid intake (i.e. the lower pair of check valves in Fig. 1) in a high-pressure cylinder (apparent in Fig. 1), which has a high-pressure plunger (apparent in Fig. 1) that can be moved therein by a drive (1, 4), with which a high-pressure fluid is supplied to a high-pressure line (3), further comprising a pulsation damper (31) which has at least one pressure sensor (13, 14; see the 112a/b rejections above) for controlling the drive (para. 46), and further comprises a pressure release valve (32) that can be opened and closed (Fig 1). Trieb goes on to disclose that the at least one pressure generator comprises the drive having a hydraulic linear motor (1, 4; Fig. 1) for operating the high-pressure plunger in the high-pressure cylinder (paras. 44-47), and the hydraulic linear motor is connected with a control unit (15) comprising an electrical power supply (electric power is implicit; see also the left-pointing arrow in Fig. 1 and para. 28), wherein the high-pressure plunger sends a signal (16) to the control unit (Fig. 1; para. 46) when high-pressure plunger reaches a predefined depth in the high-pressure cylinder (this reads upon any designated position in the cylinder; para. 46 makes clear that the position is monitored throughout the piston stroke). While Trieb discloses a hydraulic linear motor instead of an electric linear motor, it is apparent that Trieb and Riedel provide very similar reciprocating piston pressure generators that monitors pressure and piston position via a control unit in order to provide a desired output flow/pressure. Furthermore, Trieb clearly shows the known use of a pulsation damper and pressure release valve in the high pressure line of such a device; both of which are vastly well known in the art of piston pumps for their innate functions of dampening fluid pulsations (thus smoothing output flow) and controlling discharge pressure (thus improving device safety). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a high pressure fluid device with smoother output flow and improved overall system safety, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Trieb in combination with those seen in Riedel in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Riedel high pressure line 9 with the pulsation damper 31 and pressure release valve 32 of Trieb in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a safer high-pressure pump with a smoother output flow.
In regards to Claim 2, Riedel discloses that the high-pressure plunger is configured for movement by the electric linear motor, such that it can be positioned for a programmed and controllable high-pressure stroke (paras. 1, 17-19; “stroke movement”).
In regards to Claim 3, Riedel further discloses (within the variation of Fig. 2) at least a second pressure generator (i.e. right side pressure generator) having a second electric linear motor (32, 34), wherein the at least two pressure generators are each connected (i.e. mechanically connected) to the high-pressure line (42; apparent in Figs. 1-2), and both electric linear motors are connected to the control unit for coordinated operation (Fig. 2; para. 21).
In regards to Claim 4, the high-pressure cylinder is a first high-pressure cylinder (i.e. left cylinder; Fig. 1), and wherein the high-pressure plunger is a first high-pressure plunger (i.e. left plunger; Fig. 1), and further wherein the pressure generator further comprises a second high-pressure cylinder (i.e. right cylinder; Fig. 1) and wherein each of the first high-pressure cylinder and the second high-pressure cylinder further comprises a second high-pressure plunger (see the 112b rejection above; the second high pressure cylinder includes a second plunger therein; Fig. 1), and wherein the electric linear motor is connected between these the first high-pressure cylinder and the second high-pressure cylinder (Fig. 1), and force-transferring connections or plunger fasteners (3) are connected to the forcer in the electric linear motor at opposing ends thereof in order to move the force-transferring connections or plunger fasteners (Fig. 1; paras. 17-19).
In regards to Claim 5, two apparatuses (“test objects 9, 10”; para. 18) are connected to the high-pressure fluid line (Fig. 1) and the electric linear motors (see the 112b rejection above; this is interpreted as a single electric linear motor) can be powered by the control unit in offset phases (as described in para. 19).
In regards to Claim 6, the electric linear motor is a first electric linear motor (i.e. left linear electric motor 31; Fig. 2), and further comprising at least a second pressure generator (Fig. 2) having a second electric linear motor (32) and wherein the first electric linear motor and the second electric linear motor are both regulated by the control unit (para. 21).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed September 17th, 2025 have 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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC