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 .
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, indentation 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 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) 11, 14, 16, 18-20, 29, 36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer WO 0208607 A1 in view of Foster US 20190032685 in further view of Haseley US 20070224058.
In e.g. Fig 7, Fischer discloses:
11. (New) A conveying device, comprising at least one housing 3 and a separating element 2 which is arranged movably in an axial direction in the housing and separates two fluid regions (6 and 43) in the housing from each other; wherein the separating element is formed of a separating bellows with individual bellows folds (see e.g. Fig 7) and a bellows base (see annotated Fig 7 herein), the separating bellows moving in the axial direction from a contracted position to an extended position defining an extended length (stroke of bellows pump or any extended portion thereof); a mechanical actuating device (16, 19) is provided for controlling a movement of the separating bellows and wherein the heat generated by the mechanical actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows can be at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device (Heat is structurally capable of being at least partially dissipated from the housing 3 of Fischer using a cooling device e.g. a fan blowing air on the housing. It is noted that the claim does not require a cooling device as no cooling device is positively claimed. All that is claimed is a housing capable of dissipating heat using a cooling device. See MPEP 2114 II.); wherein the mechanical actuating device comprises a driveable actuator (16, 19) which at least partially passes through the housing (see e.g. Fig 7) and can be brought into contact with a bellows base of the separating bellows for controlling a movement of the separating bellows in the axial direction (See e.g. Fig 7 wherein the structure of Fischer allows for the possibility of 16 contacting the outer covering of 51 e.g. when fluid from 7 enters 6 and expands 2, and 16 is driven towards 2 to contact 2 when fluid pressure in 17 is released. Thus, Fischer meets the structural limitations of the apparatus claim in a manner corresponding to applicant’s claimed structure. See MPEP 2114 II.); and wherein the drivable actuator is separate from the bellows base and can be selectively held at a distance from the bellows base (see e.g. annotated Fig 7 herein wherein 16, 19 is separate from the bellows base and can be held at a distance from the bellows base as in annotated Fig 7 herein), and wherein the actuating rod and the bellows are located on opposite sides of the bellows base (see e.g. annotated Fig 7 herein wherein 16,19 is located on the opposite side of the bellows base that the bellows 2).
Fischer discloses an actuator in the form of a rod 19 and a piston 16. However, Foster discloses control of a bellows 100 using an actuator rod 28. Additionally, Foster discloses the actuator rod is structurally capable of being brought into contact with the bellows base 109 to control movement of the bellows base (see e.g. Fig 6) and structurally capable of being held at a distance from the bellows base (see e.g. Fig 5).
A simple substitution of one actuator (the rod of Foster) for another (the actuator of Fischer) with the predictable result of controlling a bellows has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an actuator rod as taught by Foster a simple substitution for the actuator of Fischer to gain the benefit of allowing for the reduction of the width/diameter of the actuator, the chamber 43, and the associated housing 3 of Fischer.
PNG
media_image1.png
441
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitations wherein the cooling device comprises a cooling chamber extending circumferentially around the housing and extending in the axial direction to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows, claim 12 states “the heat generated by the mechanical actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows “can be” at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device”. Thus, by stating “can be”, applicant is not requiring any cooling device (i.e. not positively claiming any cooling device). Thus, it appears no cooling device is actually required given the language of the claim. In other words, if the claimed cooling device were present, the such a device would be capable of dissipating heat from the pump of Fischer. Therefore, it appears Fischer as modified above meets the limitations of the claim.
In any event, Haseley discloses the use of a cooling chamber 170 extending circumferentially around the housing 166 and extending in the axial direction.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an cooling chamber along the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley in the system of Fischer to gain the benefit of “for cooling the apparatus” as taught by Haseley in the abstract.
It is noted that the extended length is not requiring e.g. a fully extended length. With this modification in view of Haseley, Fischer as modified above would disclose to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows as the cooling chamber would extend the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley.
Fischer as modified above discloses (all references to Fischer unless noted otherwise):
14. (New) The conveying device of claim 11, wherein a fluid volume enclosed in a first of the two fluid regions remains the same or substantially the same when the separating bellows is extended by moving the actuating rod back out of the first fluid region (As best understood in, see Fig 7 wherein the fluid volume in 14 could remain substantially the same when the actuator [28 of Foster] is moved downward as 2 expands downward.). Claim 23 is rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claims 16, and 29, Fischer discloses: wherein at least one fluid line (7, 8) is arranged in a bellows retainer (33 including 35 ), which fluid line opens into a first of the two fluid regions (as best understood, see 6).
18. The conveying device of claim 11, wherein the housing (166 of Haseley) comprises parts of the cooling device on an outer circumference (158 of Haseley) or the parts of the cooling device are an integral part of the at least one housing.
19. (New) The conveying device of claim 11, wherein the cooling device has a cooling chamber (170 of Haseley) through which a cooling medium flows which cooling chamber arranged concentrically at least partially encompasses the housing (166 of Haseley) on an outer circumference.
20. (New) The conveying device of claim 11, wherein the cooling chamber (170 of Haseley) is bounded by the housing (166 of Haseley) and an additional housing part (158 of Haseley) which together with the at least one housing constitutes a tradeable structural unit (as best understood, see e.g. Figs 2-3 of Haseley).
In e.g. Fig 7, Fischer discloses:
36. (New) A conveying device, comprising a housing 3 and a separating element 2 which is arranged movably in the housing and separates two fluid regions (6 and 43) in the housing from each other; wherein the separating element is formed of a separating bellows with individual bellows folds (see e.g. Fig 7) and a bellows base (see annotated Fig 7 herein) moving in the axial direction from a contracted position to an extended position defining an extended length (stroke of bellows pump or any extended portion thereof); a mechanical actuating device (16, 19) is provided for controlling a movement of the separating bellows and the heat generated by the actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows can be at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device (Heat is structurally capable of being at least partially dissipated from the housing 3 of Fischer using a cooling device e.g. a fan blowing air on the housing. It is noted that the claim does not require a cooling device as no cooling device is positively claimed. All that is claimed is a housing capable of dissipating heat using a cooling device. See MPEP 2114 II.); wherein the actuating device comprises a driveable actuator (16, 19) which at least partially passes through the housing (see e.g. Fig 7) and can be brought into contact with a bellows base of the separating bellows for controlling a movement of the separating bellows (See e.g. Fig 7 wherein the structure of Fischer allows for the possibility of 16 contacting the outer covering of 51 e.g. when fluid from 7 enters 6 and expands 2, and 16 is driven towards 2 to contact 2 when fluid pressure in 17 is released. Thus, Fischer meets the structural limitations of the apparatus claim in a manner corresponding to applicant’s claimed structure. See MPEP 2114 II.); and wherein the drivable actuator is separate from the bellows base and can be selectively held at a distance from the bellows base (see e.g. annotated Fig 7 herein wherein 16, 19 is separate from the bellows base and can be held at a distance from the bellows base as in annotated Fig 7 herein), and wherein when the actuating device (16, 19) moves into the housing 3, the bellows 2 is compressed (see e.g. Fig 7).
Fischer discloses an actuator in the form of a rod 19 and a piston 16. However, Foster discloses control of a bellows 100 using an actuator rod 28. Additionally, Foster discloses the actuator rod is structurally capable of being brought into contact with the bellows base 109 to control movement of the bellows base (see e.g. Fig 6) and structurally capable of being held at a distance from the bellows base (see e.g. Fig 5).
A simple substitution of one actuator (the rod of Foster) for another (the actuator of Fischer) with the predictable result of controlling a bellows has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an actuator rod as taught by Foster a simple substitution for the actuator of Fischer to gain the benefit of allowing for the reduction of the width/diameter of the actuator, the chamber 43, and the associated housing 3 of Fischer.
Regarding the limitations wherein the cooling device comprises a cooling chamber extending circumferentially around the housing and extending in the axial direction to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows, claim 12 states “the heat generated by the mechanical actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows “can be” at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device”. Thus, by stating “can be”, applicant is not requiring any cooling device (i.e. not positively claiming any cooling device).
Thus, it appears no cooling device is actually required given the language of the claim. In other words, if the claimed cooling device were present, the such a device would be capable of dissipating heat from the pump of Fischer. Therefore, it appears Fischer as modified above meets the limitations of the claim.
In any event, Haseley discloses the use of a cooling chamber 170 extending circumferentially around the housing 166 and extending in the axial direction.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an cooling chamber along the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley in the system of Fischer to gain the benefit of “for cooling the apparatus” as taught by Haseley in the abstract.
It is noted that the extended length is not requiring e.g. a fully extended length. With this modification in view of Haseley, Fischer as modified above would disclose to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows as the cooling chamber would extend the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley.
In e.g. Fig 7, Fischer discloses:
38. (New) A conveying device, comprising at least one housing 3 and a separating element 2 which is arranged movably in the housing and separates two fluid regions (6 and 43) in the housing from each other; wherein the separating element is formed of a separating bellows with individual bellows folds (see e.g. Fig 7) and a bellows base (see annotated Fig 7 herein), the separating bellows moving in the axial direction from a contracted position to an extended position defining an extended length (stroke of bellows pump or any extended portion thereof); a mechanical actuating device (16, 19) is provided for controlling a movement of the separating bellows and the heat generated by the actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows can be at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device (Heat is structurally capable of being at least partially dissipated from the housing 3 of Fischer using a cooling device e.g. a fan blowing air on the housing. It is noted that the claim does not require a cooling device as no cooling device is positively claimed. All that is claimed is a housing capable of dissipating heat using a cooling device. See MPEP 2114 II.); wherein the actuating device comprises a driveable actuator (16, 19) which at least partially passes through the housing (see e.g. Fig 7) and can be brought into contact with a bellows base of the separating bellows for controlling a movement of the separating bellows (See e.g. Fig 7 wherein the structure of Fischer allows for the possibility of 16 contacting the outer covering of 51 e.g. when fluid from 7 enters 6 and expands 2, and 16 is driven towards 2 to contact 2 when fluid pressure in 17 is released. Thus, Fischer meets the structural limitations of the apparatus claim in a manner corresponding to applicant’s claimed structure. See MPEP 2114 II.); and wherein the drivable actuator is separate from the bellows base and can be selectively held at a distance from the bellows base (see e.g. annotated Fig 7 herein wherein 16, 19 is separate from the bellows base and can be held at a distance from the bellows base as in annotated Fig 7 herein), and wherein the bellows are formed media-tight for conveying hydrogen without particle contamination (The limitation - “for” conveying hydrogen without particle contamination - is a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. See MPEP 2114 II.: A claim containing a "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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. No details of the hydrogen are provided such as the quantity, pressure, and state (i.e. liquid/gas). Also, no details of the particles are provided in the claim. Also, applicant does not details of the bellows itself including its material. Additionally, no details of what constitutes media-tight are provided in the claim. Therefore, see page 2 of Fischer including “The object of the invention is to provide a pump with an improved sealing of the pump chamber.”; “This completely seals the pump chamber via the bellows. The sealing with the bellows provides a safe and long-term stable sealing of the pump room.”; “The bellows is preferably formed from metal. A very robust and stable seal is achieved by using the metallic bellows.”; “This shape enables easy manufacture and manufacture of the tight connections between the bellows and the ring and between the ring and the housing. For example, the bellows can be connected to the ring all around tightly before the piston is assembled. After assembly of the piston, the ring is tightly connected to the housing by a weld.”. Thus, the robust seal of the metal bellows of Fischer having tight connections between the bellows and the ring and between the ring and the housing is considered media tight and is structurally capable of conveying hydrogen in some quantity and at some pressure without particle contamination from some particles. Therefore, the structure of Fischer meets the limitations of the apparatus claim as per MPEP 2114 II.).
Fischer discloses an actuator in the form of a rod 19 and a piston 16. However, Foster discloses control of a bellows 100 using an actuator rod 28. Additionally, Foster discloses the actuator rod is structurally capable of being brought into contact with the bellows base 109 to control movement of the bellows base (see e.g. Fig 6) and structurally capable of being held at a distance from the bellows base (see e.g. Fig 5).
A simple substitution of one actuator (the rod of Foster) for another (the actuator of Fischer) with the predictable result of controlling a bellows has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an actuator rod as taught by Foster a simple substitution for the actuator of Fischer to gain the benefit of allowing for the reduction of the width/diameter of the actuator, the chamber 43, and the associated housing 3 of Fischer.
Regarding the limitations wherein the cooling device comprises a cooling chamber extending circumferentially around the housing and extending in the axial direction to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows, claim 12 states “the heat generated by the mechanical actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows “can be” at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device”. Thus, by stating “can be”, applicant is not requiring any cooling device (i.e. not positively claiming any cooling device). Thus, it appears no cooling device is actually required given the language of the claim. In other words, if the claimed cooling device were present, the such a device would be capable of dissipating heat from the pump of Fischer. Therefore, it appears Fischer as modified above meets the limitations of the claim.
In any event, Haseley discloses the use of a cooling chamber 170 extending circumferentially around the housing 166 and extending in the axial direction.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an cooling chamber along the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley in the system of Fischer to gain the benefit of “for cooling the apparatus” as taught by Haseley in the abstract.
It is noted that the extended length is not requiring e.g. a fully extended length. With this modification in view of Haseley, Fischer as modified above would disclose to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows as the cooling chamber would extend the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley.
Fischer as modified above discloses:
39. (New) The conveying device of claim 11, wherein the bellows base of the separating bellows can be controlled on its side opposing the actuating rod by a fluid pressure which, penetrating a first of the two fluid regions, results in the separating bellows being extended and the actuating rod being moved back (see e.g. Fig 7 of Fischer wherein pressure can enter via the inlet check valve ).
40. (New) The conveying device of claim 39, wherein a fluid volume enclosed in a first of the two fluid regions remains the same or substantially the same when the separating bellows is extended by moving the actuating rod back out of the first fluid region (As best understood, see Figs 5 and 7 of Fischer wherein fluid entering 7 can cause 2 to expand axially and 16 would be structurally capable of being moved back without 2 contacting 16 if fluid is present in 14. This structure appears to correspond to applicant’s structure and thus is structurally capable of meeting the limitations of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II.).
Claim(s) 15, 26, 30, 37, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer WO 0208607 A1 in view of Foster US 20190032685 in further view of Haseley US 20070224058 in further view of Fukumoto US 4836756.
Regarding claims 15, 26 and 41, in Fig 7 Fischer as modified above does not disclose the limitations of these claims.
However, Fukumoto discloses wherein a bellows retainer 7 is arranged inside the housing 2 in such a manner that, with the bellows base bearing on the bellows retainer, the bellows folds are stacked in a receiving space between the bellows retainer and the housing (see annotated Fig 2 herein).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a bellows retainer in the system of Fischer in Fig 7 as taught by Fukumoto to gain the benefit of reducing the dead/retained fluid volume inside the bellows during the discharge stroke.
Regarding claims 30 and 42, Fischer as modified above discloses: wherein at least one fluid line (7, 8 of Fischer) is arranged in the bellows retainer (7 of Fukumoto), which fluid line opens into a first of the two fluid regions (6 of Fischer); wherein at least one fluid line (7, 8 of Fischer) is arranged in a bellows retainer (7 of Fukumoto), which fluid line opens into the first of the fluid regions (6 of Fischer).
PNG
media_image2.png
585
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In e.g. Fig 7, Fischer discloses:
37. (New) A conveying device, comprising a housing 3 and a separating element 2 which is arranged movably in the housing and separates two fluid regions (6 and 43) in the housing from each other; wherein the separating element is formed of a separating bellows with individual bellows folds (see e.g. Fig 7) and a bellows base (see annotated Fig 7 herein), the separating bellows moving in the axial direction from a contracted position to an extended position defining an extended length (stroke of bellows pump or any extended portion thereof); a mechanical actuating device (16, 19) is provided for controlling a movement of the separating bellows and the heat generated by the actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows can be at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device (Heat is structurally capable of being at least partially dissipated from the housing 3 of Fischer using a cooling device e.g. a fan blowing air on the housing. It is noted that the claim does not require a cooling device as no cooling device is positively claimed. All that is claimed is a housing capable of dissipating heat using a cooling device. See MPEP 2114 II.); wherein the actuating device comprises a driveable actuator (16, 19) which at least partially passes through the housing (see e.g. Fig 7) and can be brought into contact with a bellows base of the separating bellows for controlling a movement of the separating bellows (See e.g. Fig 7 wherein the structure of Fischer allows for the possibility of 16 contacting the outer covering of 51 e.g. when fluid from 7 enters 6 and expands 2, and 16 is driven towards 2 to contact 2 when fluid pressure in 17 is released. Thus, Fischer meets the structural limitations of the apparatus claim in a manner corresponding to applicant’s claimed structure. See MPEP 2114 II.); and wherein the drivable actuator is separate from the bellows base and can be selectively held at a distance from the bellows base (see e.g. annotated Fig 7 herein wherein 16, 19 is separate from the bellows base and can be held at a distance from the bellows base as in annotated Fig 7 herein).
Fischer discloses an actuator in the form of a rod 19 and a piston 16. However, Foster discloses control of a bellows 100 using an actuator rod 28. Additionally, Foster discloses the actuator rod is structurally capable of being brought into contact with the bellows base 109 to control movement of the bellows base (see e.g. Fig 6) and structurally capable of being held at a distance from the bellows base (see e.g. Fig 5).
A simple substitution of one actuator (the rod of Foster) for another (the actuator of Fischer) with the predictable result of controlling a bellows has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an actuator rod as taught by Foster a simple substitution for the actuator of Fischer to gain the benefit of allowing for the reduction of the width/diameter of the actuator, the chamber 43, and the associated housing 3 of Fischer.
Regarding the limitations wherein the cooling device comprises a cooling chamber extending circumferentially around the housing and extending in the axial direction to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows, claim 12 states “the heat generated by the mechanical actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows “can be” at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device”. Thus, by stating “can be”, applicant is not requiring any cooling device (i.e. not positively claiming any cooling device). Thus, it appears no cooling device is actually required given the language of the claim. In other words, if the claimed cooling device were present, the such a device would be capable of dissipating heat from the pump of Fischer. Therefore, it appears Fischer as modified above meets the limitations of the claim.
In any event, Haseley discloses the use of a cooling chamber 170 extending circumferentially around the housing 166 and extending in the axial direction.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an cooling chamber along the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley in the system of Fischer to gain the benefit of “for cooling the apparatus” as taught by Haseley in the abstract.
It is noted that the extended length is not requiring e.g. a fully extended length. With this modification in view of Haseley, Fischer as modified above would disclose to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows as the cooling chamber would extend the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley.
Fischer does not disclose a bellows retainer is provided that comprises a protruding annular surface for the bellows base to rest on in at least one position of the bellows, the protruding annular surface comprising an indentation for residual fluid.
However, Fukumoto discloses a bellows retainer 7 is provided that comprises a protruding annular surface (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein) for the bellows base to rest on in at least one position of the bellows (the annular surface is structurally capable of being rested on depending on the degree of compression of the bellows), the protruding annular surface comprising an indentation for residual fluid (10, see definition of trough below including “conduit”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a bellows retainer in the system of Fischer in Fig 7 as taught by Fukumoto to gain the benefit of reducing the dead/retained fluid volume inside the bellows during the discharge stroke.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer WO 0208607 A1 in view of Foster US 20190032685 in further view of Haseley US 20070224058 in further view of Bublik RU 2685353 C1.
Fischer as modified above does not disclose the limitations of claim 17.
However, Bublik discloses wherein a proximity sensor 29 is arranged in the bellows retainer for monitoring at least one position of the separating bellows 2/12.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a proximity sensor in the system of Fischer in Fig 7 as modified above as taught by Fukumoto to gain the benefit of facilitating precise control of the stroke of the bellows.
Additionally, integrating the proximity sensor in the bellows retainer as a single integrated structure is obvious since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of a multi piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V. B.) (see also, In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1954)). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to integrate the proximity sensor in the bellows retainer gain the benefit of securing the proximity sensor to prevent damage to the sensor.
PNG
media_image3.png
854
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 31-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer WO 0208607 A1 in view Haseley US 20070224058.
Fischer discloses:
31. (New) A conveying device, comprising a cylindrical housing 3 and a separating element 2 which is arranged movably in the cylindrical housing and separates two fluid regions (6 and 43) in the cylindrical housing from each other; wherein the separating element is formed of a separating bellows with individual bellows folds (see e.g. Fig 7) the separating bellows moving in the axial direction from a contracted position to an extended position defining an extended length (stroke of bellows pump or any extended portion thereof); a mechanical actuating device (16, 19) is provided for controlling a movement of the separating bellows; the heat generated by the actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows can be at least partially dissipated from the housing using a cooling device (The limitations “can be” means the cooling device is not required. Heat generated by the actuating device via the movement of the separating bellows can be at least partially dissipated from the housing of Fischer using a cooling device, so Fischer meets the limitations of the apparatus claim.
Fischer does not disclose wherein at least a part of the cooling device is arranged on an outer circumference of the at least one housing; the cooling device has a cooling chamber through which a cooling medium flows, wherein the cooling chamber is arranged concentrically and at least partially encompasses the cylindrical housing on the outer circumference, extending in the axial direction to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows; wherein the cooling chamber is formed as a wall recess in an outer wall of the cylindrical housing, which wall recess is overlapped by a thin-walled cylindrical housing part to form the cooling chamber; wherein the thin-walled cylindrical housing part is attached to the outer circumference of the at least one cylindrical housing to form a tradeable structural unit.
Haseley discloses wherein at least a part of the cooling device is arranged on an outer circumference of the cylindrical housing (166 of Haseley); the cooling device has a cooling chamber (170 of Haseley) through which a cooling medium flows, wherein the cooling chamber is arranged concentrically and at least partially encompasses the cylindrical housing on the outer circumference (see e.g. Figs 2-3); wherein the cooling chamber is formed as a wall recess in an outer wall of the cylindrical housing (see annotated Figs 2-3), which wall recess is overlapped by a thin-walled cylindrical housing part (158 of Haseley wherein the wall 158 in thinner that a thick wall. Thin is a relative term and no objective boundaries are provided in the specification.) to form the cooling chamber (170 of Haseley); wherein the thin-walled cylindrical housing part is attached to the outer circumference of the at least one cylindrical housing to form a tradeable structural unit (as best understood, see Figs 2-3 of Haseley).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an cooling chamber along the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley in the system of Fischer to gain the benefit of “for cooling the apparatus” as taught by Haseley in the abstract.
It is noted that the extended length is not requiring e.g. a fully extended length. With this modification in view of Haseley, Fischer as modified above would disclose to at least surround the extended length of the separating bellows as the cooling chamber would extend the entire length of the pump as taught by Haseley.
Fischer as modified above discloses (references made to Fischer unless noted otherwise):
32. (New) The conveying device of claim 31, wherein a bellows base of the separating bellows can be controlled on its side opposing the actuating rod by a fluid pressure which, penetrating a first of the two fluid regions, results in the separating bellows being extended and the actuating rod being moved back (As best understood, see Figs 5 and 7 wherein fluid entering 7 can cause 2 to expand axially and 16 would be structurally capable of being moved back without 2 contacting 16 if fluid is present in 14. This structure appears to correspond to applicant’s structure and thus is structurally capable of meeting the limitations of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II.).
33. (New) The conveying device of claim 31, wherein a fluid volume enclosed in a first of the two fluid regions remains the same or substantially the same when the separating bellows is extended by moving the actuating rod back out of the first fluid region (As best understood in, see Fig 7 wherein the fluid volume in 14 could remain substantially the same as 16 is moved downward as 2 expands downward.).
35. (New) The conveying device of claim 31, wherein at least one fluid line (7, 8) is arranged in the bellows retainer (33 including 35 ), which fluid line opens into the one fluid region (as best understood, see 6).
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer WO 0208607 A1 in view Haseley US 20070224058 in further view of Fukumoto US 4836756.
Regarding claims 34, in Fig 7 Fischer as modified above does not disclose the limitations of claim 34.
However, Fukumoto discloses wherein a bellows retainer 7 is arranged inside the housing 2 in such a manner that, with the bellows base bearing on the bellows retainer, the bellows folds are stacked in a receiving space between the bellows retainer and the housing (see annotated Fig 2 herein).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a bellows retainer in the system of Fischer in Fig 7 as taught by Fukumoto to gain the benefit of reducing the dead/retained fluid volume inside the bellows during the discharge stroke.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new reference, Haseley, is now being used to teach the limitations which applicant argues.
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 THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-W 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights