Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
In making the below rejections, the examiner has considered and addressed each of the applicants arguments. Claims 1-9 have been canceled and Claims 10-25 are currently pending and being examined.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
625
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Corral (USPAP 2008/0206067) in view of Robert (USPAP 2004/0134486).
In reference to independent claim 10, De Corral discloses a method to control a piston pump for liquid chromatography (para 0051 discloses that fig 1 is for liquid chromatography), the piston pump (fig 1) including at least two phase-offset cyclically working piston-cylinder units (figure 1 discloses a “primary” piston and an “accumulator” piston), which produce a predefined flow of a liquid medium to be delivered at an outlet port (para 0072 refers to the outlet of a pump which can be interpreted as an port), the method comprising: in a pre-compression phase (the pre-compression phase is between the intake phase and when the target pressure is met) of one cycle of at least one of the piston-cylinder units (the lower graph of fig 2 shows the accumulator velocity being constant to the left of the far left dashed line during the pre-compression phase), compressing with a piston in the piston-cylinder unit (fig 2 above disclose the primary velocity piston compressing during the compression phase); and
calculating a first correction amplitude of a piston speed for at least one piston-cylinder unit (para 0084 and 0085 discloses modifying the speed of the piston with a correction amplitude to keep the outlet pressure at a constant value), and
applying a first corrected piston speed to at least one piston-cylinder unit (change in accumulator piston velocity during the delivery phase),
wherein the first corrected piston speed is based on the calculated first correction amplitude of the piston speed(para 0084 and 0085 discloses determining a corrected velocity based on the corrected amplitude of the piston speed).
however
De Corral is silent to the calculated first correction amplitude of the piston speed is based on a decreasing exponential function.
Robert, a similar dual piston pump, teaches the pressure is based on a decreasing exponential function (para 0084-0086 disclose “within the scope of the present invention to use other types of profiles, for example decreasing exponential profiles with parameters different for the inspiration and expiration in view of optimizing the ventilation” this cite shows how it is well known in the art to use a decreasing exponential function to accurately control piston speed in a pump).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to base the calculated first correction amplitude of the piston speed on a decreasing exponential function in the method of De Corral, in light of the teachings of Robert, as a known way of carrying out such calculations in the pump art. Furthermore, basing the piston speed correction on the decreasing exponential profile allows for “optimizing” the fluid movement, para 0084; Roberts
In reference to dependent claim 11, De Corral in view of Robert discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: measuring a first pressure at a first time and a second pressure at a second time during the pre-compression phase in which an adiabatic heating effect is negligible in the piston-cylinder unit (figure 6 shows using two pressure and time points to linearly predict the future setpoints); extrapolating the first pressure at the first time and the second pressure at the second time (fig 6 graphically shows the process of using tow pressure values to extrapolate future set points) to determine a calculated time in which a pressure of the piston-cylinder unit will be at the constant system pressure (para 0075-0077 discloses using two pressures to determine future setpoints which are made up of a time component and a pressure component); determining a detected time in which the pressure of the piston-cylinder unit is measured with a pressure sensor (pressure sensor is the “accumulator pressure transducer” in fig 1) to be at the constant system pressure (para 0075-0077 discloses a method of determining a set point, the set point being a function of time and pressure and used to keep the pressure at a constant level, graphically seen in fig 6); and calculating the first correction amplitude of the piston speed for at least one piston-cylinder unit (para 0084 and 0085 discloses modifying the speed of the piston with a correction amplitude to keep the outlet pressure at a constant value).
De Corral and Robert does not explicitly disclose calculating a time difference based on the calculated time and the detected time and using the time difference to calculate the correction amplitude (however para 0046 specifically discloses that “FIG. 6 shows an example of how a linear prediction is used to compute the pressure set point based on two pressure values just before the start of control of a preferred embodiment”).
In reference to dependent claim 12, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of claim 11, De Corral teaches a method further comprising: opening an outlet valve (the accumulator check valve in figure 1) on the piston-cylinder unit when the pressure of the piston- cylinder unit is at the constant system pressure to begin a delivery phase (the accumulator check valve in figure 1 opens during the delivery phase); applying the first corrected piston speed to at least one piston-cylinder unit during the delivery phase (change in accumulator piston velocity during the delivery phase), in which the delivery phase is subsequent to the pre-compression phase (the delivery phase naturally follows the pre-compression phase, see annotated fig 2).
In reference to dependent claim 13, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of Claim 11, De Corral teaches a method that further discloses operating the pump in a pressure range up to “a couple thousand psi” [13.8 MPa] para 0008, however
De Corral and Robert are silent to the first pressure ranges from 2 MPa to 10 MPa and the second pressure ranges from 10 MPa to 20 MPa.
The MPEP specifically states “PRIOR ART WHICH TEACHES A RANGE OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, OR TOUCHING THE CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES IF THE PRIOR ART RANGE DISCLOSES THE CLAIMED RANGE WITH "SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY"” MPEP 2131.03, II
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A).
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method wherein the first pressure ranges from 2 MPa to 10 MPa and the second pressure ranges from 10 MPa to 20 MPa because the prior art of De Corral anticipates the claimed range.
In reference to dependent claim 14, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of Claim 11, however
De Corral and Robert are silent to the decreasing exponential function comprises an equation, the equation including: vk = c*exp[(t - t2)/ Ʈ] wherein vk is the first corrected piston speed for at least one of the piston-cylinder units, c is the first correction amplitude of the piston speed, t is a time, t2 is the detected time, Ʈ is a time constant. However, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to devise such an equation based on the available academic literature.
In reference to dependent claim 15, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of Claim 11, however
De Corral and Robert are silent to the decreasing exponential function comprises an equation, the equation including: vk = c*exp[(x - xII)/ԑ], wherein vk is the corrected piston speed for at least one of the piston-cylinder units, c is the first correction amplitude of the piston speed, x is a position of the piston, and xII is a position of the piston at the detected time. However, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to devise such an equation based on the available academic literature.
In reference to dependent claim 16, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of claim 11, De Coral teaches a method further comprising calculating a second correction amplitude of the piston speed based on a characteristic selected from the group consisting of a magnitude of the first correction amplitude, the constant system pressure, and a combination thereof (para 0076 specifically discloses calculating linear prediction to determine “projected values” meaning it is done at least twice to determine pressure set points that are used to determine correction amplitudes that are then used to determine piston speed).
In reference to dependent claim 17, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of Claim 16, De Corral teaches a method further comprising: applying a second corrected piston speed to at least one piston-cylinder unit during the delivery phase, the second corrected piston speed is based on the calculated second correction amplitude of the piston speed (para 0076 specifically discloses calculating linear prediction to determine “projected values” meaning it is done at least twice to determine pressure set points that are used to determine correction amplitudes that are then used to determine piston speed).
In reference to dependent claim 18, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of Claim 17, however
De Corral and Robert are silent to the calculated second correction amplitude of the piston speed is based on a stepped or rectangular function.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B). De Corral in para 0019 specifically discloses “The method comprises the step of modifying the accumulator velocity with a closed loop feedback control on the accumulator pressure during transfer to maintain a system pressure substantially equal to an expected system pressure.”. Therefore the accumulator piston speed is a result effective variable.
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the correction amplitude as taught by De Corral because speeding up and slowing down the piston to account for thermal effect and maintain a constant output pressure was recognized as a result-effective variable and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the correction amplitude to achieve a desired level of constant pressure.
In reference to dependent claim 19, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method according to claim 10, De Corral further discloses a pump wherein the method further comprises: measuring a pressure profile at the outlet port during the pre-compression phase (with the primary pressure transducer in fig 1), wherein a system pressure at the outlet port increases linearly (fig 2 shows that the pressure increases linearly); opening an outlet valve on the piston-cylinder unit to begin a first delivery phase of the liquid medium (para 0053 discloses “The check valves are passive valves that allow fluid to go in one direction only” the check valves automatically open when sufficient pressure is reached); linearly extrapolating the pressure profile at the beginning of the first delivery phase (para 0077 discloses “FIG. 6 shows an example of how a linear prediction is used to compute the pressure set point based on two pressure values just before the start of control. The two pressure values are used to generate a straight line that determines the set point values”); calculating a first pressure difference between the linearly extrapolated pressure profile at the beginning of the first delivery phase and a measured system pressure during the first delivery phase (para 0080-0081 discloses calculating a difference between extrapolated and measured system pressure); and calculating the first correction amplitude (para 0084 and 0085 discloses modifying the speed of the piston with a correction amplitude to keep the outlet pressure at a constant value) of the piston speed based on the first pressure difference (seen in fig 6).
In reference to dependent claim 20, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of claim 19, De Corral further discloses a pump further comprising: applying the first corrected piston speed to at least one piston-cylinder unit during the first delivery phase (fig 9 shows a primary modified velocity), in which the first delivery phase is subsequent to the pre- compression phase (annotated fig 2 above shows the delivery phase following the pre-compression phase).
In reference to dependent claim 21, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of claim 20, De Corral further discloses a pump further comprising: in a second pre-compression phase of one cycle of at least one of the piston-cylinder units (right side of fig 2), compressing the piston in the piston-cylinder unit (right precompression phase in fig 2); opening the outlet valve on the piston-cylinder unit to begin a second delivery phase of the liquid medium (para 0053 discloses “The check valves are passive valves that allow fluid to go in one direction only” the check valves automatically open when sufficient pressure is reached); linearly extrapolating the pressure profile at the beginning of the second delivery phase (para 0077 discloses “FIG. 6 shows an example of how a linear prediction is used to compute the pressure set point based on two pressure values just before the start of control. The two pressure values are used to generate a straight line that determines the set point values”); calculating a second pressure difference between the linearly extrapolated pressure profile at the beginning of the second delivery phase and a measured system pressure during the second delivery phase (para 0080-0081 discloses calculating a difference between extrapolated and measured system pressure); and calculating a second correction amplitude (para 0084 and 0085 discloses modifying the speed of the piston with a correction amplitude to keep the outlet pressure at a constant value) of the piston speed based on the second pressure difference (same as the left side of fig 2); adding the first correction amplitude and the second correction amplitude to form a summation (examiner is taking the summation to mean that the modification adjustments are cumulative over time, which are done by De Corral); and applying a second corrected piston speed to at least one piston-cylinder unit during the second delivery phase (right side of figure 9 shows a primary modified velocity), in which the second delivery phase is subsequent to the second pre-compression phase, the second corrected piston speed is based on the summation (examiner is taking the summation to mean that the modification adjustments are cumulative over time, which are done by De Corral).
In reference to dependent claim 22, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of claim 10, Robert further discloses a method in which the decreasing exponential function comprises a time constant, wherein the method comprises determining the time constant based on a duration of the pre-compression phase (col 2, lines 3-8 discloses “the speed of the pressure drop is measured during a certain portion of the interval between the feeding strokes of the pump. During these intervals the pressure drop encountered is independent of the pump characteristics and follows an exponential function” since the decreasing exponential function is based on speed, speed is distance traveled divided by a time constant.
In reference to dependent claim 23, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of claim 10, however
De Corral and Robert are silent to further comprising: calculating an additional correction of the piston speed, in which the calculated additional correction comprises a substantially ramped or stepped function, which has a sudden or ramped increase, a middle region having a substantially constant value of a determined maximum amplitude, and a sudden or ramped decrease.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B). De Corral in para 0019 specifically discloses “The method comprises the step of modifying the accumulator velocity with a closed loop feedback control on the accumulator pressure during transfer to maintain a system pressure substantially equal to an expected system pressure.”. Therefore the accumulator piston speed is a result effective variable.
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A).
In reference to dependent claim 24, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of claim 23, however
De Corral and Robert are silent to wherein a front flank of the ramped or stepped function is associated with a predefined piston position.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B). De Corral in para 0019 specifically discloses “The method comprises the step of modifying the accumulator velocity with a closed loop feedback control on the accumulator pressure during transfer to maintain a system pressure substantially equal to an expected system pressure.”. Therefore the accumulator piston speed is a result effective variable.
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A).
In reference to dependent claim 25, De Corral in view of Robert teaches the method of claim 23, De Corral further discloses a pump further comprising determining the maximum amplitude of the additional correction based on the first correction amplitude (if the amplitude displacement is cumulative the maximum displacement occurs in the second cycle and since it is cumulative is based on the first correction).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument that “the field of endeavor as "dual pump systems focused on control" is impermissibly overbroad” examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is defining “field of endeavor” far to narrowly. Furthermore the MPEP states “A reference outside of the field of endeavor is reasonably pertinent if a person of ordinary skill would have consulted it and applied its teachings when faced with the problem that the inventor was trying to solve.” So even if the Robert is not in the field of endeavor, and examiner is not conceding that argument, overcoming the “problem” of pressure control would make it analogous art.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Applicant submits that Robert is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention” Similarities and differences in structure and function carry far greater weight in determining nonanalogy or analogy, see MPEP 2141.01(a) II. See also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-26, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004) where the court of appeals applied the “field of endeavor test” for analogous art and determined that tooth brushes and small brushes for hair were analogous art because toothbrushes are structurally similar to small brushes for hair, and a toothbrushes could be used to brush facial hair. Likewise, in In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the court agreed that since pumps and compressors have essentially the same function and structure, they are in the same field of endeavor. See MPEP 2141.01(a) IV. Robert and De Corral have even more similar function and structure, both systems are dual piston pumps moving a liquid. Applicant is effectively making the argument that one hair brush is non-analogous to another hair brush because of how the brush is used. The argument is unpersuasive.
In reference to applicant’s argument that “the Examiner expressly acknowledged that Robert addresses different technical problems” the examiner did not acknowledge that Robert addressed different technical problems, as stated above examiner believes Robert addresses similar problems.
In reference to applicant’s argument that “Absent any teaching linking Robert's ventilation flow profiles to pressure-error compensation in chromatographic pumps, a person of ordinary skill would not reasonably expect such a modification to succeed” examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant seems to believe that if Robert does not explicitly disclose a chromatography pump within the specification the rejection is not valid and there is no expectation of success. Examiner disagrees, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES W NICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)272-6492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. 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.
/CHARLES W NICHOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783