DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 16 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 11, line 2: “the housing” should read --the separate housing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a separate housing solely containing a sensor” in line 8. The phrase “solely containing” is a new matter. There is no disclosure anywhere in the originally filed specification that the housing 42 contains only a sensor to the exclusion of everything else.
Claims 2 – 16 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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 – 16 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 recites the limitation “a separate housing solely containing a sensor which is attached to the piston chamber filled with the medium, wherein the separate housing is filled with a gel so that the sensor is not in contact with the medium in the piston chamber” in last four lines. The phrase “solely” makes the claim indefinite. The term “solely” means “only” or "exclusively," without involving anyone or anything else. In view of the filed specification and the above limitation, the separate housing (42) contains sensor (40) and gel (45). Thus, it is not clear as to how the separate housing “only/solely” contains the sensor. For examination purposes, it is understood that there is a “separate housing” which contains pressure sensing element (claimed as “sensor”) and gel.
Claims 2 – 16 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 –16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Takamitsu (US 2016/0230752 – herein after Suzuki) in view of Fessele et al. (US 2005/0247133 – herein after Fessele).
In reference to claim 1, Suzuki teaches a system (10; see figs. 1-2 and ¶48) for handling fluids comprising:
a manifold (54+36) comprising ducts (56+ passage downstream of port 52 – herein after 56+52) for the fluids to be handled;
a pump (14) comprising a piston chamber (86/42) which is filled with a medium (M; see ¶70); and
a bendable membrane (40, see ¶53) forming a fluid-filled membrane chamber (chamber 44 with fluid “L”, see ¶55) arranged between the ducts (56+52) of the manifold (54+36) and the piston chamber (86/42) filled with the medium for transferring pressure changes in the piston chamber filled with the medium to the ducts of the manifold (as evident from disclosure in ¶76); and
a sensor (32) which is attached to the piston chamber (86/42) filled with the medium (see ¶72).
Suzuki remains silent on the system, comprising “a separate housing solely containing” the sensor, “wherein the separate housing is filled with a gel so that the sensor is not in contact with the medium in the piston chamber”.
However, Fessele teaches a pressure sensing apparatus (see shown figure), comprising a separate housing (1) solely containing a sensor (sensor element 9; see ¶13), wherein the separate housing is filled with a gel (21; see ¶13) so that the sensor is not in contact with a fluid [see ¶2: “To protect it from mechanical stress or exposure to chemicals, the sensor element equipped with the integrated evaluation circuit is provided with a protective covering comprised of gel that also covers the bonding wires and the point at which the connecting elements exit from the plastic of the housing”].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the pressure sensor (32) in the system of Suzuki for the pressure sensor comprising a (separate) housing containing a sensor and filled with gel as taught by Fessele in order to obtain the predictable result of measuring pressure of the fluid. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pressure sensor in the system of Suzuki for provision of a separate housing that is to be filled with gel as taught by Fessele for known purpose of protecting the sensing element from mechanical stress or exposure to fluid, as recognized by Fessele (see ¶2, last six lines).
In reference to claim 2, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein (see fig. 1) the pump comprises a piston (74, see ¶63) which is arranged in the piston chamber filled with the medium for moving the medium by increasing or minimising a volume in the piston chamber filled with the medium by a movement of the piston inwards or outwards of the piston chamber (see ¶65-¶66).
In reference to claim 3, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein (see fig. 1) the piston of the pump is surrounded by bellows (82, see ¶56).
In reference to claim 4, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein (see fig. 1) the bellows (82) are made of stainless-steel (see ¶69).
In reference to claim 5, Suzuki teaches the system, comprising (see fig. 1) a stepper motor (30, see ¶62) for moving a piston (74, see ¶63) of the pump.
In reference to claim 7, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein a valve (16, see fig. 1 and ¶49) is arranged between a duct (52/56) of the manifold (54+36) which is arranged adjacent to the bendable membrane (40) and further ducts (ducts connected to ports 60, 62 of the valve in view of disclosure in ¶60) which are connected to a supply (“coating liquid supply source”) and a disposal (“coating liquid dispenser”) for the fluid to be handled.
In reference to claim 8, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein the valve (16) is a 3/2-way valve (as evident from disclosure: valve 16 is three-way valve; 3/2-way valve is a specific type of three-way valve which has three ports and two possible positions for flow control; the valve 16 has “three ports 58, 60, 62” and two positions, wherein in one position fluid is provided to the pump chamber while in another position fluid is discharged from the pump chamber; thus, valve 16 is a 3/2-way valve).
In reference to claim 9, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein (see ¶72) the sensor (32/32a) is fluidly connected through a hole (88) to the piston chamber filled with the medium (M).
In reference to claim 10, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein the medium (M) in the piston chamber is an oil (see ¶55).
In reference to claim 11, Suzuki, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the separate housing (per Fessele) of the sensor and the interface (border) to the piston chamber is filled with the medium [see Suzuki’s fig. 1 and Fessele’s figure: in the modified system, the separate housing 1 of the sensor 9 (in Fessele) and the interface (conduit 5 or top end of pressure connection 4, in Fessele) to the piston chamber (of Suzuki) is filled with the medium (M, in Suzuki)].
In reference to claim 12, Suzuki teaches the system, comprising a circuit board (controller 18, see ¶75).
In reference to claim 13, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein the sensor (32) is connected electrically to the circuit board (see ¶76 and fig. 2).
In reference to claim 14, Suzuki teaches the system, wherein the circuit board (18) comprises (see ¶75-¶76) a data processing unit (formed by “input/output unit, a storage unit, and a computation unit”) for processing data received from the sensor (32).
In reference to claim 15, Suzuki teaches a method for monitoring a system according to claim 1, comprising steps of (see ¶89-¶107):
measuring parameters in the piston chamber filled with the medium with the sensor [see ¶73: “Further, responsive to a command from the controller 18 (or at regular intervals), the pressure sensor 32 transmits the detected pressure (detection value) of the indirect medium M as a detection signal P to the controller 18”];
providing the measured parameters to a data processing unit (formed by “input/output unit, a storage unit, and a computation unit”, see ¶75) on a circuit board (18, see ¶75); and
determining whether the measured parameter has expected values [values corresponding “various judgement methods” carried out by the controller 18, see ¶93-¶102 for instance; there are various methods disclosed by Suzuki to determine an abnormality of the diaphragm 40, wherein each of these methods involve obtained values from the sensor, comparing them to corresponding “threshold value” (th1-th8; stored beforehand in the storage unit), and determining whether the obtained values are below or above the corresponding threshold value in order to determine whether there is an abnormality of the diaphragm].
In reference to claim 16, Suzuki teaches the method, further comprising a step of preparing measurement data in analysis runs with known fluids to obtain a set of data with values to be expected [“analysis run” = operational run of one pump cycle comprising suction and discharge phase; in view of figs. 6-7, plural such operational runs happen over a period time; in each of these operational runs, “measurement data” is prepared with known fluids (i.e. fluid M present in chamber 42/86 and fluid L present in chamber 44) in the system to obtain a set of data with values to be expected (i.e. pressure values related to bellows interior to be expected during operation of the system)].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Halimi and Sakuma Shoichi (JPH 11300780A – herein after Sakuma).
Suzuki teaches the system, comprising a piston (in Suzuki: see tubular elongated member of assembly 74 that is within the bellows 82, see ¶63 and fig. 1; in Yajima: 34, see ¶49) of the pump.
Suzuki remains silent on the system, wherein the piston of the pump has at least partially a D-shaped circumference.
However, Sakuma teaches a system for handling fluid that comprises a piston (17) having at least partially D-shaped circumference (axial groove 174 has D-shaped cross section; see ¶16 of translation).
In Suzuki, the piston interacts with incompressible medium. In such systems, ambient air may enter into the incompressible medium during suction stroke of the piston (this is further discussed in Yajima, see ¶9 or ¶91). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the piston of Suzuki for providing it at least partially a D-shaped circumference as taught by Sakuma for the purpose of allowing air to flow through this flat groove downstream of the piston, as recognized by Sakuma (see ¶22 of translation), thus reducing piston’s sliding resistance.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed September 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot. The amendment to independent claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied to claim 1, in view of newly found reference of Fessele.
Note: Applicant’s remark “In the Advisory Action issued in response to Applicant's last filed arguments, Examiner stated that Applicant's arguments regarding its distinctive sensor housing 42 failed because "[T]he claim does not recite a housing be solely an enclosure for the sensor". In response, Applicant submits herewith an amendment to base claim 1, including clarifying language with regard to a separate sensor housing as follows” is acknowledged. However, claim 1 as currently amended creates a 35 USC 112 issues as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
