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 July 28th, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 28th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 13 have been amended and Claims 14-18 have been newly-added. Consequently, Claims 1-18 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 Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s newly-submitted drawings, which correct some of the issues noted in the previous drawing objection. However, issues remain.
The drawings are again objected to because Figure 9 (as submitted by Applicant in the current response) continues to have element numbers that are scratched/scribbled out, making it unclear what element numbers are truly intended. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure was objected to because it contained legal phraseology therein (“said”). Applicant has submitted a corrected Abstract that corrects these issues, rendering this objection moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 were objected to because of the following informalities. Applicant has corrected some of these issues, but issues remain.
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 should read “a toothed side of each of the toothed racks faces in a same direction”
Claim 1, lines 9-10 should read “the at least one piston being received”
Claim 4, line 2 should read “axis of the at least one piston rod.”
Claim 9, line 2 should read “side by side and which are coupled”
Claim 10, line 7 should read “when a difference inside the common”
Claim 11, line 3 should read “each of the electric motors operates at least two”
Claim 14, line 6 should read “faces in a same direction”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13 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 has corrected some of these issues, but issues remain.
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 1-18 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, lines 3-4 recite the limitation “the pair of pinions meshing with a respective one of two toothed racks, and the pair of pinions driving a respective one of the toothed racks”; this renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is not clear whether the “pair of pinions” are 1) meshing with and driving a single toothed rack of the two toothed racks or 2) each meshing with and driving a respective rack of the two toothed racks (i.e. two racks are separately driven by respective pinions). Second, it is not clear whether the phrasing “a respective one of two toothed racks” is 1) attempting to refer back to one of the previously recited racks or 2) introducing two additional racks altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as 1) each pinion to be meshing with and driving a respective one of the two toothed racks, and 2) referring back to one of the previously recited racks.
Claim 5, line 2 recites “toothing”; it is not clear whether this phrasing is 1) attempting to refer back to one of the previously recited “toothed sides” or 2) introducing another tooth arrangement altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as referring back to one of the previously recited “toothed sides”
Claim 9, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “at least two pump cylinder chambers”; it is not clear if the limitation “at least two pump cylinder chambers” is 1) attempting to further define the previously recited “pump cylinder chamber” of Claim 1 or 2) introducing additional chambers altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as further defining the previously recited “pump cylinder chamber”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “separate electric motors”; it is not clear if the limitation “separate electric motors” is 1) attempting to further define the previously recited “electric motor” of Claim 1 or 2) introducing additional motors altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as further defining the previously recited “electric motor” of Claim 1.
Claim 10, line 4 recites the limitation “the electric motors”; it is not clear if the limitation “the electric motors” is attempting to refer back to 1) the sum of the “at least one electric motor” of Claim 1 and the “separate electric motors” of Claim 10 or 2) only the “separate electric motors” of Claim 10. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as referring back to only the “separate electric motors” of Claim 10
Claim 11 recites the limitation “at least two oppositely arranged and interconnected piston rods”; it is not clear if the limitation “at least two oppositely arranged and interconnected piston rods” is the same as (or different from) the previously recited “at least one piston rod” of Claim 1. Furthermore, it is not clear if “at least two oppositely arranged and interconnected piston rods” is attempting to further define the previously recited “at least one piston rod” of Claim 1 or introducing other piston rods altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as further defining the previously recited “at least one piston rod” of Claim 1
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a piston”; it is not clear if the limitation “a piston” is attempting to further define the previously recited “at least one piston” of Claim 1 or introducing another piston altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as further defining the previously recited “at least one piston” of Claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “two oppositely arranged pump cylinder chambers”; it is not clear if the limitation “two oppositely arranged pump cylinder chambers” is 1) attempting to further define the previously recited “pump cylinder chamber” of Claim 1 or 2) introducing other chambers altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as requiring further defining the previously recited “pump cylinder chamber” of Claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “adjacent cylinder chambers”; it is not clear if the limitation “adjacent cylinder chambers” is 1) attempting to further define the previously recited “pump cylinder chamber” of Claim 1 or 2) introducing other chambers altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as introducing other chambers altogether.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “a first common header” and “a second common header”; it is not clear if these limitations are 1) attempting to further define the previously recited “common header” of Claim 9 or 2) introducing other headers altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as further defining the previously recited “common header” of Claim 9.
Claim 14, lines 2-3 recite the limitation “the pair of pinions meshing with a respective one of two toothed racks, and the pair of pinions driving a respective one of the toothed racks”; this renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is not clear whether the “pair of pinions” are 1) meshing with and driving a single toothed rack or 2) each meshing with and driving a respective one of the two toothed racks. Second, it is not clear whether the phrasing “a respective one of two toothed racks” is 1) attempting to refer back to one of the previously recited racks or 2) introducing another rack altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as 1) each pinion to be meshing with and driving a respective one of the two toothed racks, and 2) referring back to one of the previously recited racks.
Claim 14, line 4 recites “the toothed racks in turn being operatively coupled to being coupled to a combined piston rod and piston”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear whether the toothed racks must be 1) operatively coupled to a combined piston rod and piston or simply 2) coupled to a combined piston rod and piston. The claim language currently recites both, which presents a conflict in scope on its face. However, for examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as requiring the toothed racks to be simply coupled to a combined piston rod and piston.
Claim 14, line 6 recites “at least one piston, the piston being received”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if this phrasing is 1) attempting to further define the previously recited “combined piston rod and piston” or 2) introducing another piston altogether. For examination purposes herein, this limitation has been interpreted as further defining the previously recited “combined piston rod and piston”.
The term “heavy-duty” in claims 15 & 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy-duty” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes herein, “heavy-duty pump” has been interpreted as simply “pump”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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) 1-2, 5-9, & 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0363116 to Gregory.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 6-8, Gregory discloses:
1. A pump (200; Figs. 6-8; “dual completion linear rod pumping system”; para. 45) comprising at least one electric motor (212, 213) coupled to a gear assembly (210, 211), the gear assembly in turn being coupled to a pair of pinions (208, 209; Fig. 7), the pair of pinions meshing with a respective one of two toothed racks (206 & 207) (Fig. 7 shows how each pinion meshes with a respective one of the two racks) and the pair of pinions driving a respective one of the toothed racks (Fig. 7 shows how each pinion drives a respective one of the two racks), the toothed racks in turn being operatively coupled to at least one piston rod (82, 83, 252, 253), the toothed racks being arranged in parallel with the at least one piston rod (apparent in Fig. 7), wherein a toothed side (i.e. a radially outer side) of each of the toothed racks face in the same direction (i.e. both toothed sides of both racks face radially outward (i.e. a same direction) and also both face a pinion (i.e. a same direction); apparent in Fig. 7; the examiner notes that the limitation “same direction” is wholly absent from Applicant’s written description, and thus, there is no special definition for “same direction” defined therein; as such, the recited “same direction” has been interpreted herein as encompassing any and all possible directions in existence), the at least one piston rod being arranged between the toothed racks, the at least one piston rod having at least one piston (68, 69), the piston being received within a pump cylinder chamber (70) (Figs. 7-8 shows that the at least one piston rod (i.e. upper portions 252/253) is arranged between the two racks, and that the at least one piston rod is operatively coupled to the two racks (at least indirectly via intermediate elements; apparent in Figs. 6-7).
14. A pump (200; Figs. 6-8; “dual completion linear rod pumping system”; para. 45) having at least one electric motor (212, 213) coupled to a gear assembly (210, 211), the gear assembly in turn being coupled to a pair of pinions (208, 209), the pair of pinions meshing with a respective one of two toothed racks (208, 209) (Fig. 7 shows how each pinion meshes with a respective one of the two racks) and the pair of pinions driving a respective one of the toothed racks (Fig. 7 shows how each pinion drives a respective one of the two racks), the toothed racks in turn being operatively coupled to being coupled to a combined piston rod and piston (rod/piston arrangements 252/82 and 253/83 are both coupled (at least indirectly) to the two racks; Fig. 8), the toothed racks being arranged in parallel with the piston rod (apparent in Fig. 7), wherein a toothed side (i.e. a radially outer side) of each of the toothed racks faces in the same direction (i.e. both toothed sides of both racks face radially outward (i.e. a same direction) and also both face a pinion (i.e. a same direction); this is apparent in Fig. 7; the examiner notes that the limitation “same direction” is wholly absent from Applicant’s written description, and thus, there is no special definition for “same direction” defined therein; as such, the recited “same direction” has been interpreted herein as encompassing any and all possible directions in existence), the piston rod being arranged between the toothed racks (Fig. 7), the piston rod having at least one piston (68, 69), the piston being received within a pump cylinder chamber (70) (Figs. 7-8 shows that the rod/piston arrangement (i.e. 252/82) is arranged between the two racks).
In regards to Claim 2, the two toothed racks (206, 207) are interconnected by a coupling assembly (220; Figs. 6-8), the coupling assembly (220) being coupled (i.e. at least indirectly coupled) to the at least one piston (via piston rods 82, 83; Figs. 7-8).
In regards to Claim 5, the toothed racks have a guide rail (252, 253) on an opposite side (i.e. radially inner side) of the toothed racks from the toothing formed thereon (apparent in Fig. 7).
In regards to Claim 6, the at least one piston rod comprises two oppositely acting and interconnected piston rods (Fig. 7 depicts one piston rod at an upward position while the other piston rod is at an opposite lower position; paras. 48-49 disclose independent pump operations); and the two toothed racks are coupled to the two oppositely acting and interconnected piston rods (82, 83; Fig. 7).
In regards to Claim 7, cylinders (i.e. a left cylinder 70; a right cylinder 70; Fig. 8) of the piston rods are connected to a drive housing (60, 220) (Figs. 6-8), the drive housing surrounding at least one of the pair of pinions, the toothed racks and exposed parts of the piston rods (Fig. 7; paras. 45, 53-54).
In regards to Claim 8, the drive housing (60, 220) comprises a central part (i.e. the upper end of 220, between 210 and 211, seen best in Fig. 6) extending between the cylinders (Fig. 6) and extension housings (casings 60 and the lower, elongated portions of 220 and, seen best in Figs. 6 & 8) attached to the central part (Figs. 6 & 8), the extension housings (portions 220) surrounding the racks along a travelling path of the racks outside the central part (this is apparent in Fig. 7; see also para. 45).
In regards to Claim 9, Gregory further discloses at least two pump cylinder chambers (i.e. left and right cylinder chambers 68, 69) arranged side by side (Fig. 8) and are coupled to a respective valve block (78), the valve blocks being coupled to a common header (i.e. a common fluid outlet/header 72) (para. 50; Fig. 8).
In regards to Claims 15 & 17, the pump is a heavy-duty pump for pumping liquid or mixtures of liquids and particulate material (Gregory discloses pumping petroleum and hydrocarbons from the well, while separately extracting water, from subterranean formations or reservoirs; para. 47).
In regards to Claims 16 & 18, the pump is for pumping at least one of mud, proppant, and concrete (Gregory discloses pumping petroleum and hydrocarbons from the well, while separately extracting water, from subterranean formations or reservoirs; para. 47).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, & 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0120218 to Hilgers et al.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 14, and with particular reference to Figures 6-12, Hilgers et al. (Hilgers) discloses:
1. A pump (200; Figs. 6-8; “tandem motor linear rod pumping system”; para. 54) comprising at least one electric motor (212, 213) coupled to a gear assembly (210, 211), the gear assembly in turn being coupled to a pair of pinions (208, 209; Fig. 7), the pair of pinions meshing with a respective one of two toothed racks (two racks 206 & 207 are shown; Fig. 7; para. 55; Fig. 7 shows how each pinion meshes with a respective one of the two racks) and the pair of pinions driving a respective one of the toothed racks (Fig. 7 shows how each pinion drives a respective one of the two racks), the toothed racks in turn being operatively coupled to at least one piston rod (82, 252), the toothed racks being arranged in parallel with the at least one piston rod (apparent in Fig. 7), wherein a toothed side (i.e. a radially outer side) of each of the toothed racks face in the same direction (i.e. both toothed sides of both racks face radially outward (i.e. a same direction) and also both face a pinion (i.e. a same direction); apparent in Fig. 7), the at least one piston rod being arranged between the toothed racks (apparent in Fig. 7), the at least one piston rod having at least one piston (68), the piston being received within a pump cylinder chamber (70) (Figs. 7-8 shows that the at least one piston rod (i.e. upper portion 252) is arranged between the two racks, and that the at least one piston rod is operatively coupled to the two racks (apparent in Fig. 7).
14. A pump (200; Figs. 6-8; “tandem motor linear rod pumping system”; para. 54) having at least one electric motor (212, 213) coupled to a gear assembly (210, 211), the gear assembly in turn being coupled to a pair of pinions (208, 209), the pair of pinions meshing with a respective one of two toothed racks (208, 209) (Fig. 7 shows how each pinion meshes with a respective one of the two racks) and the pair of pinions driving a respective one of the toothed racks (Fig. 7 shows how each pinion drives a respective one of the two racks), the toothed racks in turn being operatively coupled to being coupled to a combined piston rod and piston (rod/piston arrangement 82/252 is coupled between the two racks; Figs. 7-8), the toothed racks being arranged in parallel with the piston rod (apparent in Fig. 7), wherein a toothed side (i.e. a radially outer side) of each of the toothed racks faces in the same direction (i.e. both toothed sides of both racks face radially outward (i.e. a same direction) and also both face a pinion (i.e. a same direction); this is apparent in Fig. 7), the piston rod (i.e. upper portion 252) being arranged between the toothed racks (apparent in Fig. 7), the piston rod having at least one piston (68), the piston being received within a pump cylinder chamber (70) (Figs. 7-8 shows that the rod/piston arrangement (i.e. 252/82) is arranged between the two racks).
In regards to Claim 2, the two toothed racks are interconnected by a coupling assembly (plate assembly 318; Figs. 10-12; para. 47), the coupling assembly being coupled to the at least one piston (at least indirectly, via piston rod 82; Figs. 7-12).
In regards to Claim 5, the toothed racks have a guide rail (252) on the opposite side of the rack from the toothing (Fig. 7).
In regards to Claims 15 & 17, the pump is a heavy-duty pump for pumping liquid or mixtures of liquids and particulate material (Hilgers discloses pumping oil, water and/or hydrocarbons, from subterranean formations or reservoirs; Abstract; para. 2).
In regards to Claims 16 & 18, the pump is for pumping at least one of mud, proppant, and concrete (Hilgers discloses pumping oil, water and/or hydrocarbons, from subterranean formations or reservoirs; Abstract; para. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 & 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory (applied above) in view of US 2020/0072201 to Marica.
In regards to Claim 10, Gregory discloses the pump of claim 9, wherein the pistons arranged in the at least two pump cylinder chambers are driven by separate electric motors (212, 213). However, Gregory does not further disclose at least one pressure sensor being arranged in the common header, the at least one pressure sensor being coupled to a processor that controls rotation of the electric motors, each electric motor having an encoder detecting the angular position of the motor, the encoder being coupled to the processor, the processor being configured to adjust speed and the angular position of the electric motors when a difference inside pressure in the common header is greater than a predetermined tolerance.
However, Marica discloses another piston pump (Fig. 1) for pumping drilling mud (paras. 3-4, 18) comprising two separate electric motors (110), two gear assemblies (120), and two reciprocating pistons/rods (64), wherein the pistons are arranged in two pump cylinder chambers (60) and driven by the separate electric motors (110). Marica further discloses at least one pressure sensor (52) in pressure communication with the common header (14), the sensor being coupled to a processor (50) that controls the rotation of the electric motors (para. 24), each motor having an encoder (56) detecting the angular position of the motor (para. 25), the encoder being coupled to the processor (para. 25), the processor being set up to adjust the speed and hence the angular position of the motors when the difference in pressure in the header is greater than a predetermined tolerance (para. 25-26). Marica makes clear that by monitoring both 1) the pressure output from the dual piston assembly and 2) the rotary speed/position of the drive motors, the pump is able to produce a relatively constant flow of pressurized working fluid to the discharge manifold (para. 26). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a dual piston pump with more accurate output flow and pressure, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Marica in combination with those seen in Gregory 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 Gregory’s pump assembly with the monitoring/control system (50-58) of Marica (i.e. arranging a pressure sensor in Gregory’s common header 72 and monitoring/controlling motor speed/position based thereon via a controller 50) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a drilling fluid pump that ensures a relatively constant flow of pressurized well fluid to the discharge manifold 72.
In regards to Claim 12, Marica discloses that the processor is set up to drive the motors at an initial angular separation equal to 360 degrees divided by the number of motors (para. 26).
In regards to Claim 13, Marica discloses that the processor is configured to adjust the angular separation of the motors to obtain an even flow out of the header (para. 26; “a continuously variable angle or timing between them (e.g., via controller 50) to produce a relatively constant flow of pressurized working fluid to discharge manifold”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 & 11 are 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: the best available prior art fails to disclose the invention as recited in Claims 3 and 11.
In particular, the best available prior art fails to disclose that the coupling assembly comprises a link that is rotatably attached to the at least one piston rod and rotatably attached to the racks, as claimed in Claim 3 (see also Fig. 8). Applicant’s specification makes clear that such a rotatable coupling will even out any small differences between the racks and ensure smooth movement and less wear by allowing the racks to move longitudinally with respect to one another. This freedom of movement ensures that any misalignments between the toothing of the pinions or the racks may be self-adjusted by a slight relative longitudinal movement of the racks. None of the available prior art discloses the two racks, as recited in Claim 1, being coupled by a coupler that comprises a link that is rotatably attached to the interconnected piston rods and rotatably attached to the racks.
Additionally, the best available prior art fails to disclose that the at least one piston rod comprises at least two oppositely arranged and interconnected piston rods, each of the electric motors operate at least two oppositely arranged and interconnected piston rods, the piston rods each having a piston that is received within a respective one of two oppositely arranged pump cylinder chambers, the pump cylinder chambers together with adjacent cylinder chambers forming a set of first cylinder chambers on a first side of the pump and a set of second cylinder chambers on a second side of the pump, the set of first cylinder chambers being coupled to a first common header and the set of second cylinder chambers being coupled to a second common header, as claimed in Claim 11 (see also Figs. 9-10). Applicant’s specification makes clear that through such an arrangement of opposing piston rods, cylinders, cylinder chambers, and first/second headers allows the pump units to be placed closed together without the motors interfering, while further allowing for an optimal reduction in pressure pulsations during operation (paras. 59-81). None of the available prior art discloses the two racks, side by side and opposing piston arrangement, valve blocks, and first/second sets of cylinder chambers, as required by Claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed July 28th, 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