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 June 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 9-17, 19-25, 28 and 30-34 remain pending in the application. The previous objections to claims 20, 21 and 27 are withdrawn in light of the Applicant's amendment to claims 20 and 27.
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, 17 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 4,981,418 to Kingsford in view of U. S. Patent 5,611,678 to Pascual and U. S. Patent 6,957,952 to Steck.
Referring to claim 16, Kingsford teaches a method for pumping slurry comprising:
providing a double diaphragm slurry pump comprising a vertical longitudinal axis and a pair of first and second pumping chambers (35, 35’), a first and second pump head (26, 26’) enclosing the first and second pumping chambers (35, 35’) respectively, and a translatable operating shaft (21) comprising a resiliently deformable diaphragm (31, 31’) (a bellows is a type of diaphragm) coupled to each of opposite ends of the shaft (21), one of the diaphragms (31, 31’) disposed in each of the first and second pumping chambers (35, 35’); moving the operating shaft (21) in a first direction during an intake stroke; drawing slurry from an inlet manifold (49) into the first pumping chamber through a longitudinal bore of the first pump head (26’) and a lower slurry exchange bore each formed in the first pump head (26’) separate from the first pumping chamber (35’); moving the operating shaft (21) in a second direction during a pumping stroke; and expelling the slurry back through the lower slurry exchange bore during the pumping stroke from the first pumping chamber (35’) back into the longitudinal bore of the first pump head (26’), while simultaneously expelling air from the first pumping chamber (35’) into the longitudinal bore of the first pump head through an upper air vent bore; and expelling air from the first pump chamber (35’) through an upper air vent bore during the pumping stroke into the longitudinal flow bore of the first pump head (26’) simultaneous to the step of expelling the slurry; wherein the upper air vent bore is smaller in diameter than the lower slurry exchange bore such that air is preferentially ejected from the first pumping chamber (26’) rather than slurry (Fig. 1, annotated below; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Depression)][AltContent: textbox (Partition Wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concavity)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concavity)][AltContent: textbox (Lower Slurry Exchange Bore)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal Flow Bore)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Upper Air Vent Bore)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
790
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kingsford Figure 1.
[AltContent: textbox (Outlet Manifold)][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Inlet Manifold)]
PNG
media_image2.png
344
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kingsford Figure 1.
Kingsford does not teach a method wherein fluid is a slurry comprising solid particles. Pascual teaches a method wherein the pumped fluid is a slurry comprising solid particles (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 54-56).
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 Kingsford with the pumped slurry taught by Pascual in order to use the pump for pumping fluids besides the fluid taught by Kingsford, and because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the pumped slurry, for another, the pumped fluid of Kingsford, to obtain predictable results, pumping the pumped fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Kingsford and Pascual do not teach the diaphragm contacting the wall. Steck teaches a method comprising:
moving an operating shaft (64) in a second direction during a pumping stroke along a shaft axis until a portion of a diaphragm (60) disposed in the first pumping chamber (18) contacts a portion of a wall of the first pump head (22) that is coaxial with the shaft axis (Figures 2-4; col. 12 lines 27-59).
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 Kingsford with the diaphragm motion taught by Steck in order to remove dead space (clearance) in the pump chamber thereby improving compression efficiency.
Referring to claim 17, Kingsford, Pascual and Steck teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
the expelling step further comprises flowing the slurry through the longitudinal bore of the first pump head (26’) to an outlet manifold (48) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 19, Kingsford, Pascual and Steck teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 17, as detailed above, and further teaches a method wherein:
the drawing step further comprises drawing the slurry first through the longitudinal flow bore from the intake manifold (49) prior to drawing the slurry through the lower slurry exchange bore into the first pumping chamber (35’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 20, Kingsford, Pascual and Steck teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 17, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
the upper air vent bore fluidly couples the longitudinal flow bore of the first pump head (26’) directly to an upper portion of first pump chamber (35’), and the lower slurry exchange bore fluidly couples the longitudinal flow bore of the first pump head (26’) directly to a lower portion simultaneous to the step of expelling the slurry (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54, wherein the lower portion of the lower slurry exchange bore directly connects to an upper part of the bottom half or lower end of the first pumping chamber).
Referring to claim 21, Kingsford, Pascual and Steck teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 20, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
there are no other bores fluidly coupling the first pumping chamber to the longitudinal bore of the first pump head (26’) other than the upper air vent bore and the lower slurry exchange bore (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 22, Kingsford, Pascual and Steck teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
the slurry is drawn from the inlet manifold (48) through an inlet check valve (42, 42’) during the drawing step (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 23, Kingsford, Pascual and Steck teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
the step of moving the operating shaft (21) in the first direction comprises moving the diaphragm (31’) in the first pump chamber (35’) towards the first pump head (26’), and the step of moving the operating shaft (21) in the second direction comprises moving the diaphragm (31’) in the first pump chamber (35’) away the first pump head (26’) in an opposite direction (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 24, Kingsford, Pascual and Steck teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method comprising:
drawing slurry from the inlet manifold (49) into the second pumping chamber (35) through a longitudinal flow bore and a lower slurry exchange bore formed in the second pump head (26) simultaneous with the step of expelling the slurry back through the lower slurry exchange bore into the first pump head (26’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 25, Kingsford, Pascual and Steck teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
the shaft (21) is moved by applying pressurized air to the diaphragms (31, 31’) in the first or second pumping chambers (35, 35’) which deforms the diaphragms (31, 31’) to move the shaft (21) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 4,981,418 to Kingsford in view of U. S. Patent 6,957,952 to Steck.
Referring to claim 32, Kingsford teaches a double diaphragm pump comprising:
a pump body defining a vertical longitudinal axis and a pumping chamber (35’); an inlet flow manifold (49) and an outlet flow manifold (48) coupled to the pump body (Fig. 1; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54);
a pump head (26’) coupled to the body adjacent the pumping chamber (35’), the pump head (26’) comprising a longitudinal flow bore separate from the pumping chamber (35’) and fluidly coupled to the inlet (49) and outlet (48) flow manifolds, a wall (part of 22) comprising a surface facing the pumping chamber (35’); an upper air vent bore extending through the wall and fluidly coupling the pumping chamber (35’) to the longitudinal flow bore; and a lower slurry exchange bore extending through the wall and fluidly coupling the pumping chamber (35’) to the longitudinal flow bore (it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The recitation of slurry as the pumped fluid is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54); and
an operating shaft (21) coupled to a diaphragm (31’) (a bellows is a type of diaphragm), the diaphragm (31’) disposed in the pumping chamber (35’), the operating shaft (21) configured to linearly reciprocate along a shaft axis to actuate the diaphragm (31’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Kingsford does not teach the diaphragm contacting the wall. Steck teaches a method wherein:
a wall of a pump head (22) further comprises a portion that is coaxial with a shaft (64) axis and configured to be contacted by the diaphragm (60) during a pump stroke (Figures 2-4; col. 12 lines 27-59).
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 Kingsford with the diaphragm motion/contact taught by Steck in order to remove dead space (clearance) in the pump chamber thereby improving compression efficiency.
Referring to claim 33, Kingsford and Steck teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 32, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a pump wherein the lower slurry exchange bore is aligned along a lower slurry bore axis (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54), but does not teach the lower slurry bore axis being located below the shaft axis along the vertical longitudinal axis.
However, the Applicant has not provided any reason why the lower slurry bore axis being located below the shaft axis along the vertical longitudinal axis is critical to the claimed invention, and therefore it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the lower slurry bore axis being located below the shaft axis along the vertical longitudinal axis, as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different locations of the lower slurry bore axis solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different locations of the lower slurry bore axis.
Referring to claim 34, Kingsford and Steck teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 32, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a pump wherein:
the wall of the pump head (26’) is an arcuately curved wall and the portion of the wall that is coaxial with the shaft axis comprises a depression floor, the operating shaft (21) configured to actuate the diaphragm (31’)
Kingsford does not teach the diaphragm contacting the wall. Steck further teaches a method wherein:
the diaphragm (60) contacts a depression floor during the pump stroke (Figures 2-4; col. 12 lines 27-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9-15, 30 and 31 are allowable. Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 1-6, 9-15, 30 and 31, the prior art does not teach a double diaphragm pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, but more specifically wherein the lower slurry exchange bore is fluidly coupled to a lower end portion of the first pumping chamber and positioned adjacent a floor of the first pumping chamber, the lower slurry exchange bore comprising a lower surface that is continuous with the floor of the first pumping chamber.
With respect to claim 28, the prior art does not teach a double diaphragm pump comprising all the limitations of claims 16 and 28, but more specifically wherein an entrance of the lower slurry exchange bore into the first pumping chamber comprises a concave depression configured to facilitate expelling sediment entrained in the slurry outwards from the first pumping chamber, the entrance comprising a lower surface that is continuous with a floor of the first pumping chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but, unless otherwise addressed below, are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Applicant argues that “one skilled in the art would not modify the end wall 28 [of Kingsford] to have a portion in the coaxial position because this would seal the supply/discharge passage 36 thereby rendering the Kingsford bellows-type pump 10 inoperable.” Remarks 5. However, such sealing in Steck, if it even exists, would only occur at the end or the beginning of the stroke, and therefore not impact the operation of the passage. Further, a coaxial portion does not need to contact the wall in the center, which allegedly causes a seal, to be the claimed coaxial portion. The claims do not require that the coaxial portion be centrally located, just that it is coaxial with the shaft axis. As such, a ring shaped coaxial portion could accommodate the passage and be the claimed coaxial portion. Accordingly, the above modification would not render Kingsford inoperable.
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 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