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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6, 9-28, 30 and 31 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 21 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20 line 4, “a lower simultaneous” would be clearer if written as --a lower portion simultaneous--.
In claim 27 line 2 “step, the slurry flows downwards” would be clearer if written as --step and the slurry flows upwards-- since as shown in Figure 64 of the specification as filed the flow through the longitudinal bore is always upwards during both strokes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9-11, 14, 15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent 4,981,418 to Kingsford.
Referring to claim 1, Kingsford discloses a double diaphragm pump comprising:
a pump body defining a vertical longitudinal axis and first and second pumping chambers (35, 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 first pump head (26’) coupled to the body adjacent the first pumping chamber (35’), the first pump head (26’) comprising a longitudinal flow bore separate from the first pumping chamber (35’) and fluidly coupled to the inlet (49) and outlet (48) flow manifolds, an upper air vent bore, and a lower slurry exchange 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), the upper air vent bore and lower slurry exchange bore each fluidly coupling the longitudinal flow bore in turn to the first pumping chamber (26) (Fig. 1, annotated below; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54); and
an operating shaft (21) coupled to a resiliently deformable diaphragm (31’) (a bellows is a type of diaphragm), the diaphragm (31’) disposed in the first pumping chamber (35’) (Fig. 1, annotated below; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54);
wherein the shaft (21) is moveable in a pump stroke to pump a fluid through the longitudinal bore of the first pump head (26’) and the first pumping chamber (35’) from the inlet flow manifold (49) to the outlet flow manifold (48) (Fig. 1, annotated below; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54);
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 (35’) rather than slurry during the pump stroke (Fig. 1, annotated below; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54), and
wherein the lower slurry exchange bore is fluidly coupled to a lower end portion of the first pumping chamber (35’) (Fig. 1, annotated below; 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, and further by being in fluid communication with any part of the first pumping chamber, the lower slurry exchange bore is in fluid communication with an entirety of the fluid pumping chamber).
[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.
Referring to claim 2, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump comprising:
an inlet check valve (42, 42’) fluidly coupled to a bottom end of the longitudinal flow bore and the inlet flow manifold (49), and an outlet check valve (39, 39’) fluidly coupled to a top end of the longitudinal flow bore and the outlet flow manifold (48) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 3, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
the diaphragm (31’) does not enter the longitudinal bore of the first pump head (26’) during the pump stroke (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 4, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
the lower slurry exchange bore is configured and operable for bidirectional exchange of the fluid between the longitudinal bore and the first pumping chamber (35’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 5, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
the upper air vent bore and the lower slurry exchange bores are transversely oriented relative to the longitudinal flow bore and formed integrally in the first pump head (26’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 6, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 5, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
the longitudinal flow bore is vertically oriented and the upper and lower slurry exchange bores are arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal flow bore (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 9, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump comprising:
an air distribution system (18) fluidly coupled to the first pumping chamber on a dry side of the diaphragm (31’), the air distribution system (18) being configured to alternatingly inject or extract air from the first and pumping chamber (35, 35’) to translate the shaft back (21) and forth to pump the fluid (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 10, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
the first pump head (26’) comprises an integrally formed outboard concavity having an arcuately curved wall which cooperates with a mating complementary configured inboard concavity having an arcuately curved wall integrally formed in the pump body to form a shared volume which collectively defines the first pumping chamber (35’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 11, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 10, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
the upper air vent bore and the lower slurry exchange bore is fluidly coupled directly to the outboard concavity (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 14, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
the longitudinal flow bore is physically separated from the first pump chamber (35’) by a partition wall formed integrally by a body of the first pump head (26’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 15, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
the diaphragm pump is a double diaphragm pump further comprising: a second pump head (26) coupled to the body adjacent the second pumping chamber (35), the second pump head (26) comprising a second longitudinal flow bore separate from the second pumping chamber (26) and fluidly coupled to the inlet and outlet flow manifolds, a second upper air vent bore, and a second lower slurry exchange bore, the second upper air vent bore and second lower slurry exchange bore each fluidly coupling the second longitudinal flow bore in turn to the second pumping chamber (26); wherein the operating shaft (21) is linearly translatable and coupled to a resiliently deformable second diaphragm (31), the second diaphragm (31) disposed in the second pumping chamber (35); wherein the shaft (21) is moveable back and forth in reciprocating pump strokes to pump the fluid alternatingly through the longitudinal bore of the first pump head (26) and the second longitudinal bore of the second pump head (26’) from the first and second pumping chambers (35, 35’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 30, Kingsford disclose a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further disclose a pump wherein:
an entrance of the lower slurry exchange bore into the first pumping chamber (35’) comprises a concave depression configured to facilitate expelling sediment entrained in the slurry outwards from the first pumping chamber (35’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54, wherein since the wall of the concave depression acts like a funnel guiding the pumped fluid towards the lower slurry exchange bore, during the discharge stroke of the diaphragm the depression acts to funnel sediment entrained in the slurry towards the lower slurry exchange bore and thereby outwards from the first pumping chamber as claimed).
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 4,981,418 to Kingsford.
Referring to claim 12, Kingsford teaches a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 10, as detailed above, but does not teach wherein the arcuately curved wall of the inboard concavity is a mirror-image of the arcuately curved wall of the outboard concavity. However, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the arcuately curved wall of the inboard concavity a mirror-image of the arcuately curved wall of the outboard concavity, as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different types of concavity solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different types of concavity.
Referring to claim 13, Kingsford teaches a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but is silent as to the longitudinal flow bore, upper air vent bore, and lower slurry exchange bore shapes and cross sections. However, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the longitudinal flow bore, upper air vent bore, and lower slurry exchange bore cylindrical in configuration having a circular transverse cross section, as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different shapes and cross sections solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different shapes and cross sections.
Claims 16-28 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.
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 above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
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.
Referring to claim 17, Kingsford and Pascual 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 18, Kingsford and Pascual teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 17, as detailed above, and further teaches a method wherein:
the slurry flows to the outlet manifold (48) through an outlet check valve (39, 39’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 19, Kingsford and Pascual 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 and Pascual 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 and Pascual 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 and Pascual 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 and Pascual 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 and Pascual 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 and Pascual 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).
Referring to claim 26, Kingsford and Pascual teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
the longitudinal bore is vertically oriented and elongated, and the inlet and outlet manifolds (48, 49) are both horizontally oriented and elongated (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 27, Kingsford and Pascual teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 25, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
slurry flows upwards in the longitudinal bore during the drawing slurry step, and the slurry flows upwards in the longitudinal bore during the expelling the slurry step (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54).
Referring to claim 28, Kingsford and Pascual teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, and Kingsford further teaches a method wherein:
an entrance of each of the lower slurry exchange bore into the first pumping chamber (35’) comprises a concave depression to facilitate expelling sediment entrained in the slurry outwards from the first pumping chamber (35’) (Fig. 1, annotated above; col. 2 line 43 - col. 4 line 54, wherein since the wall of the concave depression acts like a funnel guiding the pumped fluid towards the lower slurry exchange bore, during the discharge stroke of the diaphragm the depression acts to funnel sediment entrained in the slurry towards the lower slurry exchange bore and thereby outwards from the first pumping chamber as claimed).
Claim 31 is 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 5,649,809 to Stapelfeldt.
Referring to claim 31, Kingsford teaches a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but does not teach an elastomeric diaphragm. Stapelfeldt teaches a diaphragm pump wherein:
a resiliently deformable diaphragm (26, 28) is formed from an elastomeric material (Fig. 1; col. 2 line 66 - col. 3 line 4).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the diaphragm from an elastomeric material, in order to provide the proper flexibility to the diaphragm, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 11, 2026 have been considered but, are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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