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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 24th, 2025.
Claims 1-11 will be examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2 should read “cause the motor to drive the diaphragm”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 6-7, & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 90/12962 to Conti (attached herein) in view of US 6,811,380 to Kim.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 2, Conti discloses:
1. A displacement pump (Fig. 2; “diaphragm pump”; Abstract) for pumping a fluid (“to continuously pump a fluid, particularly a viscous fluid”; page 2, lines 6-7), the pump comprising: an electric motor (108) including a stator (19) and a rotor (20) configured to rotate about a pump axis (120); a diaphragm (1) configured to pump fluid and disposed coaxially with the rotor (Fig. 2); a drive (3, 5, 7) connected to the rotor and the diaphragm (Fig. 2), the drive configured to convert a rotational output from the rotor into a linear input to the diaphragm (page 3, lines 14-16; see also pages 9-10); and a controller (29; Fig. 1) configured to operate the pump in a start-up mode (starting the pump is an implicit function of controller 29; additionally, “start-up mode” reads simply on a first reciprocation cycle of the diaphragm 1) and a pumping mode (pumping of “working fluid” is described in detail at pages 7-8; additionally, “pumping mode” reads simply on subsequent reciprocation cycles (i.e. those after the first cycle) of the diaphragm 1), wherein during the start-up mode the controller is configured to: cause the motor to drive the diaphragm in a first axial direction along the pump axis (i.e. left in Fig. 2; see also page 7, lines 25-32)
Although Conti disclose the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose that during the start-up mode, the controller is configured to determine an axial location of the diaphragm based on the controller detecting a first current spike when the fluid displacement member encounters a first stop, as claimed.
However, such functionality is well known the art of reciprocating pumps, as shown by Kim, who discloses a reciprocating compressor in which a controller (330) is configured to cause an electric linear motor (200) to drive a piston in a first axial direction (i.e. a discharge stroke direction) and determine an axial location of the piston based on the controller (330) detecting a first current spike (see current waveform in Fig. 4) when the piston encounters a first stop (“recognizing a collision point”; col. 4, lines 42-67). Kim specifically discloses monitoring the current applied to the motor (via current detection unit 320), and based on a comparison with a threshold, determines if the piston is colliding with an end face/valve (i.e. a mechanical stop). If such a mechanical collision/stop is detected, the control unit (330) correspondingly reduces the piston stroke length to ensure maximum operational efficiency without damaging the compressor (col. 1, lines 8-13; col. 2, lines 17-45; col. 3, lines 36-47; Fig. 4). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a reciprocating diaphragm pump having maximum diaphragm compression efficiency without damaging collisions, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kim in combination with those seen in Conti 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 Conti’s controller 29 to include the current-based collision detection methodology of Kim (i.e. using current detector 320 to monitor motor current and the associated comparative analyses to detect a mechanical collision/stop between the diaphragm 1 and the cylinder end face 106) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a more durable and reliable diaphragm pump that provides a maximum diaphragm stroke (and thus, maximum efficiency) at pump start-up and throughout pumping while also ensuring that physical collision damage of the diaphragm with the cylinder end face is avoided.
In regards to Claim 2, Kim discloses that the controller (330) is further configured to determine whether the first stop (“valve”; see also “collision C” in Fig. 4) is a mechanical stop (“there occurs a problem that the piston of the linear compressor is brought into collision with the valve of the linear compressor”; “a control unit to determine whether a collision between a piston and a valve of the linear compressor occurs by using an output signal from the current detection unit, and controlling a stroke of the linear compressor if the collision occurs”; “capable of securing a top clearance to correspond to the load without using an additional sensor, thereby minimizing collisions between the piston and the valve and, accordingly, maintaining a highly efficient operation”). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Conti’s diaphragm pump controller (29).
In regards to Claim 3, Kim discloses that the mechanical stop (“valve”; see also “collision C” in Fig. 4) corresponds with a travel limit of the diaphragm (“top dead center”; see also Claim 2 above). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Conti’s diaphragm pump controller (29).
In regards to Claim 6, Kim discloses that the controller (330) is configured to determine a stop type (i.e. maximum stroke stop, collision stop, and the like) of the first stop based on a comparison of a plurality of stop locations (Fig. 4 depicts various stop locations based on detected current “A”, including a maximum stroke stop location “B” and a collision stop point “C”; see also col. 3, lines 36-46). The same would result when Kim’s controller/current monitoring methodology is combined into Conti’s diaphragm pump controller (29).
In regards to Claim 7, Kim discloses that the controller (330) is configured to determine that the first stop is a mechanical stop (“valve”; see also “collision C” in Fig. 4) based on the comparison indicating that differences between the plurality of stop locations are less than a threshold difference (“D”; Fig. 4; col. 3, lines 36-46). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Conti’s diaphragm pump controller (29).
In regards to Claim 10, Kim discloses that the controller (330) is configured to determine a stop type (“valve”; see also “collision C” in Fig. 4) of the first stop based on a slope of a current profile (“A”; Fig. 4) of the first current spike (col. 3, lines 36-46). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Conti’s diaphragm pump controller (29).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, & 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0236236 to Larsen et al. in view of US 6,811,380 to Kim.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 2, Larsen et al. (Larsen hereinafter) discloses:
1. A displacement pump (Fig. 2; “membrane pump 13a”; para. 46) for pumping a fluid (see flow arrows in Fig. 2), the pump comprising: an electric motor (11) including a stator (31a) and a rotor (31b) configured to rotate about a pump axis (i.e. the longitudinal axis of piston rod 23); a diaphragm (29a) configured to pump fluid (see flow arrows in Fig. 2) and disposed coaxially with the rotor (apparent in Fig. 2); a drive (23, 33a, 21a, 27a) connected to the rotor and the diaphragm (Fig. 2), the drive configured to convert a rotational output from the rotor into a linear input to the diaphragm (paras. 50-51); and a controller (not shown; “an electric motor controller which is adapted to control the electric motor according to behavior of another driving arrangement in the assembly”; para. 25) configured to operate the pump in a start-up mode (starting the pump is an implicit function of the motor controller; additionally, “start-up mode” reads simply on a first reciprocation cycle of the diaphragm 29a) and a pumping mode (pumping is described in detail at paras. 46-48 & 50-51; additionally, “pumping mode” reads simply on subsequent reciprocation cycles (i.e. those after the first cycle) of the diaphragm 29a), wherein during the start-up mode the controller is configured to: cause the motor to drive the diaphragm in a first axial direction along the pump axis (i.e. left in Fig. 2); and determine an axial location of the diaphragm (para. 17; “The position of the rod element is preferably determined by the number of performed revolutions of the rotor of the electric motor. The axial position of the rod element can thus advantageously be monitored by reading the number of revolution”)
Although Larsen disclose the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose that during the start-up mode, the controller is configured to determine an axial location of the diaphragm based on the controller detecting a first current spike when the fluid displacement member encounters a first stop, as claimed (Larsen merely monitors pump position based on reading the number of revolutions of the motor (para. 17), and thus, has no means of detecting a first stop).
However, such functionality is well known the art of reciprocating pumps, as shown by Kim, who discloses a reciprocating compressor in which a controller (330) is configured to cause an electric linear motor (200) to drive a piston in a first axial direction (i.e. a discharge stroke direction) and determine an axial location of the piston based on the controller (330) detecting a first current spike (see current waveform in Fig. 4) when the piston encounters a first stop (“recognizing a collision point”; col. 4, lines 42-67). Kim specifically discloses monitoring the current applied to the motor (via current detection unit 320), and based on a comparison with a threshold, determines if the piston is colliding with an end face/valve (i.e. a mechanical stop). If such a mechanical collision/stop is detected, the control unit (330) correspondingly reduces the piston stroke length to ensure maximum operational efficiency without damaging the compressor (col. 1, lines 8-13; col. 2, lines 17-45; col. 3, lines 36-47; Fig. 4). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a reciprocating diaphragm pump having maximum compression efficiency without damaging collisions at the diaphragm, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kim in combination with those seen in Larsen 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 Larsen’s motor controller to include the current-based collision detection methodology of Kim (i.e. using current detector 320 and the associated comparative analyses to detect a mechanical collision/stop between the diaphragm 29a and the cylinder end face) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a more durable and reliable diaphragm pump that provides a maximum diaphragm stroke (and thus, maximum efficiency) at pump start-up and throughout pumping while also ensuring that physical collision damage of the diaphragm with the cylinder end face is avoided.
In regards to Claim 2, Kim discloses that the controller (330) is further configured to determine whether the first stop (“valve”; see also “collision C” in Fig. 4) is a mechanical stop (“there occurs a problem that the piston of the linear compressor is brought into collision with the valve of the linear compressor”; “a control unit to determine whether a collision between a piston and a valve of the linear compressor occurs by using an output signal from the current detection unit, and controlling a stroke of the linear compressor if the collision occurs”; “capable of securing a top clearance to correspond to the load without using an additional sensor, thereby minimizing collisions between the piston and the valve and, accordingly, maintaining a highly efficient operation”). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Larsen’s diaphragm pump controller.
In regards to Claim 3, Kim discloses that the mechanical stop (“valve”; see also “collision C” in Fig. 4) corresponds with a travel limit of the diaphragm (“top dead center”; see also Claim 2 above). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Larsen’s diaphragm pump controller.
In regards to Claim 6, Kim discloses that the controller (330) is configured to determine a stop type (i.e. maximum stroke stop, collision stop, and the like) of the first stop based on a comparison of a plurality of stop locations (Fig. 4 depicts various stop locations based on detected current “A”, including a maximum stroke stop location “B” and a collision stop point “C”; see also col. 3, lines 36-46). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Larsen’s diaphragm pump controller.
In regards to Claim 7, Kim discloses that the controller (330) is configured to determine that the first stop is a mechanical stop (“valve”; see also “collision C” in Fig. 4) based on the comparison indicating that differences between the plurality of stop locations are less than a threshold difference (“D”; Fig. 4; col. 3, lines 36-46). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Larsen’s diaphragm pump controller.
In regards to Claim 10, Kim discloses that the controller (330) is configured to determine a stop type (“valve”; see also “collision C” in Fig. 4) of the first stop based on a slope of a current profile (“A”; Fig. 4) of the first current spike (col. 3, lines 36-46). As such, the same would result when Kim’s methodology is combined into Larsen’s diaphragm pump controller.
In regards to Claim 11, Larsen makes clear that the axial location is also determined based on rotations of the rotor (para. 17; see also Claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 & 8-9 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 wherein the controller is configured to: cause the motor drive the diaphragm in a second axial direction opposite the first axial direction; detect a second stop; measure a stroke length between the first stop and the second stop; and compare the measured stroke length to a reference stroke length to determine a stop type of the first stop, as recited in claim 4. Additionally, the best available prior art fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine that the first stop is a fluid stop based on the comparison indicating at least one difference between the plurality of stop locations exceeds a threshold difference. None of Conti, Larsen, nor Kim disclose determining a first stop type based on a determined stroke length, because none of these references determines a stroke length based on opposing first and second stops; much less correlate a stroke length with any other variable of the pump. Similarly, none of Conti, Larsen, nor Kim disclose determining that the first stop is a fluid stop (as opposed to a mechanical stop) based on exceed a threshold difference between stop types because none of these references is concerned with fluidic stops at all. Applicant’s specification makes clear that while a mechanical stop physically defines a stroke limit, a fluid stop is caused by increased back pressure in the system. As such, Applicant’s invention ability to discern between mechanical and fluid stops improves system monitoring and allows for optimized motor and stroke control. The best available prior art clearly fails to disclose the stop determination methodologies of Claims 4 and 8.
Conclusion
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