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 April 28th, 2026 in response to the non-final Office Action mailed on January 12th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 4, & 6 have been amended. Claims 21-23 have been newly-added. Claims 2-3 & 12-20 have been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1, 4-11, & 21-23 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have overcome these issues, rendering the objections moot.
Claims 1, 4-11, & 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12 should read “initialization current being less than”
Claim 1, line 12 should read “motor with the controller operating the pump”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4-11, & 23 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 15-16 recite “the controller detecting a first current spike when the diaphragm encounters a first stop”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the particular arrangement of the invention cannot be discerned. In this instance, Claim 1 first recites “a mechanical stop corresponding to a travel limit of the diaphragm” in lines 8-9, and then later recites “the controller detecting a first current spike when the diaphragm encounters a first stop” in lines 15-16. In other words, Claim 1 recites two “stops”, and it becomes unclear whether the two recited “stops” are 1) the same stop or 2) different stops. As far as the examiner understands the invention (in light of the originally filed specification and original claims 1-2), it appears that the “mechanical stop” and the “first stop” are actually one and the same “stop” when interpreted in the context of the disclosed invention. In other words, as far as the examiner understands, it appears most likely that the two recited stops in Claim 1 should have been recited as “a mechanical stop” and “the mechanical stop”, respectively. However, the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent here. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be positively discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted “a first stop” in lines 15-16 as “the mechanical stop”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, Claim 6 depends from cancelled Claim 2. This is improper. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. It appears to the Examiner that Claim 6 most likely should have depended from Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are allowed. Applicant’s amendments have properly incorporated the allowable subject matter indicated in the previous office action into new independent Claims 21 & 22.
Claims 1, 4-11, & 23 are found to be provisionally allowable, pending Applicant overcoming the above-noted objections and rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to: operate the pump in a start-up mode and a pumping mode, wherein during the start-up mode the controller is configured to locate a mechanical stop corresponding to a travel limit of the diaphragm by: causing the motor to drive the diaphragm in a first axial direction along the pump axis by providing an initialization current to the motor, the initialization current less than a pumping current provided to the motor with controller operating the pump in the pumping mode; and determining an axial location of the diaphragm based on the controller detecting a first current spike when the diaphragm encounters a first stop. None of Conti, Larsen, nor Kim (all applied in previous office action) disclose a controller configured to, during a start-up mode, locate a mechanical stop corresponding to a travel limit of the diaphragm by: causing the motor to drive the diaphragm in a first axial direction along the pump axis by providing an initialization current to the motor, the initialization current less than a pumping current provided to the motor with controller operating the pump in the pumping mode; and determining an axial location of the diaphragm based on the controller detecting a first current spike when the diaphragm encounters a first stop, because none of these references determines a mechanical stop using a reduced “initialization current”, as claimed. US 5,342,176 to Redlich discloses another reciprocating compressor having current monitoring for piston position determination, but Redlich likewise fails to disclose Applicant’s particularly claimed mechanical stop determination methodology with an associated pump controller. Applicant’s specification makes clear that during the start-up mode/initialization routine, less than the maximum current can be provided to the motor to maintain axial displacement at a start-up speed slower than a maximum speed. The start-up speed can be less than about 50% of the maximum speed, among other options. Fluid displacement member displaces at less than the maximum speed to prevent impact damage when a mechanical stop is encountered. The prior art fails to disclose such a mechanical stop determination methodology.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights