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 .
Response to Arguments
The examiner notes that Applicants arguments (Page 8 ¶4-Page 11 ¶3) which argue against the Fig 1 embodiment of Winn & the Fig 4 embodiment of Buse with respect to the language of claim 1, filed on 04/17/2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 based on the particular embodiments being argued is withdrawn for independent claim 1.
However, it is noted that Applicant made no arguments with respect to the combination of Buse in view of Winn, which relied upon the Fig 8 embodiment of Buse to reject the language of claims 10 and claims 13-15. Accordingly, since no arguments are made against this combination of the prior art, the examiner is not convinced regarding the amended claims defining over the prior art of record.
Additionally, with regards to Applicants arguments Page 7 ¶5-Page 8 ¶3: that the claims were rejected under §112(f), and that the language of biasing element should not be read under 112(f), because MPEP §2181.I.A states that the language of: "circuit," "detent mechanism," "digital detector," "reciprocating member," "connector assembly," "perforation," "sealingly connected joints," and "eyeglass hanger member”. Are examples of language that does not invoke §112(f), these arguments are not convincing. This is because, first – the claims are not rejected under §112(f), rather the claims are merely interpreted as required under §112(f), accordingly, there is no rejection to traverse. Second, with regards to MPEP §2181.I.A the examiner notes that the cited portion of the MPEP does not prohibit invoking on the language biasing member. Furthermore, MPEP §2181.I.A in the paragraphs above, specifically identifies both the language of element and component as examples of non-structural generic placeholders that can be used in place of means to require interpretation under §112(f). Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Base component in claim 1
(an inner diameter of the base component being) configured to accommodate at least a portion of a plunger
Biasing element in claim 1.
Configured to bias the annular valve to a closed position
Configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component
Base component in claim 10
(a diameter of the base component being) configured to accommodate at least a portion of the plunger.
Biasing element in claim 15.
Configured to act on the base component.
Configured to act on the base component at a radial end of the base component.
Base component in claim 16
(a diameter of the base component being) configured to accommodate at least a portion of a plunger.
Biasing element in claim 16.
Configured to bias the annular valve to a closed position.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Base component in claims 1, 10, 15, and 16.
Corresponds to base component 226 that extends from the perimeter edge 218. Where an inner diameter of the base component being configured to accommodate at least a portion of plunger 120 (as understood from Fig 2, Figs 3-5, and ¶0024-¶0028 the base component accommodates the portion of plunger 120 which projects into the fluid cavity 240 during the discharge stroke of the plunger).
Biasing element in claim 15.
Corresponds to spring 230 in Fig 4 & Fig 5.
Biasing element in claims 1 & 16.
Corresponds to spring 230 in Fig 4 & Fig 5.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 Line 1-6 currently states:
“wherein the annular valve is to close during a discharge stroke of the plunger to seal the one or more passageways from the fluid cavity, and to allow flow through the fluid cavity via the central opening and through an open suction valve of the valve cartridge, and wherein the annular valve is to open during a suction stroke of the plunger to allow flow from the fluid cavity into the one or more passageways.”.
Should be changed to state:
--wherein the annular valve is to close during a discharge stroke of the plunger to seal the one or more passageways from the fluid cavity, and to allow flow through the fluid cavity via the central opening and through an open discharge valve of the valve cartridge, and wherein the annular valve is to open during a suction stroke of the plunger to allow flow from into the fluid cavity.--.
- this change is made to accurately describe fluid flow during the discharge and suction stroke of the pump.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse USPN 3811801.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Buse USPN 3811801 (Attached Figure A)
PNG
media_image2.png
736
1068
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Buse USPN 3811801 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 1: A valve cartridge (the valve cartridge is defined by the sum of its parts and includes valve body 38) for a fluid pump (the fluid pump is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
a cartridge body 38 having a first end (see Annotated Fig 8 of Buse USPN 3811801 (Attached Figure B) above) and a second end opposite the first end (Attached Figure B);
a fluid cavity (Attached Figure B) defined in the cartridge body (as seen in Attached Figure B);
one or more suction passageways 58, defined through the cartridge body (Fig 8), that open into the fluid cavity (as seen in Attached Figure B the passageways 58 open into the fluid cavity as claimed); and
a suction valve assembly (the valve assembly is defined by the sum oof its parts and includes element 64) configured to control flow from the one or more suction passageways into the fluid cavity (i.e. control flow between passages 58 and the part of the fluid cavity surrounding elements 64 & 66 of the valve), wherein the suction valve assembly comprises:
an annular valve (64,66) having a central opening (see Annotated Figure 8 of Buse USPN 3811801 (Attached Figure A) above and Attached Figure B), a perimeter edge (Attached Figure A), a base component (base component = the bottom portion of element 64 and element 66 also see Annotated Figure 8 of Buse USPN 3811801 (Attached Figure A) above; the base component of Buse is equivalent to the base component of the instant application), and a sealing surface (sealing surface = flat surface 77 in Fig 8) defined between the central opening and the perimeter edge (Attached Figure A), an inner diameter of the base component (inner diameter of the base component = inner diameter of element 66 of the base component in Attached Figure A; element 66 is identified as a cylindrical portion in Column 5 Line 10-21, thus the base component inherently has an inner diameter given what is shown in Fig 8) being configured to accommodate at least a portion of a plunger (plunger = piston 102 in Fig 8, a portion of the plunger = part of piston 102 located inside element 66 in Fig 8), and an outer diameter of the plunger (i.e. outer diameter of piston 102 in Fig 8) being similar to a diameter of the central opening (as seen in Attached Figure A and Fig 8 a diameter of the identified central opening is similar to an outer diameter of plunger 102) and less than the inner diameter of the base component (as seen in Attached Figure A and Fig 8 the outer diameter of the plunger 102 is less than the inner diameter of element 66); and
a biasing element 110 configured to bias the annular valve to a closed position (as understood from Fig 8), a diameter of the biasing element (i.e. diameter of spring 110) being smaller than an outer diameter of the base component (as understood from Fig 8 a diameter of the biasing element 110 is smaller than an outer diameter of element 66 of the base component) such that the biasing element is configured to bias the annular valve at an end of the base component (as understood from Fig 8 the biasing element is configured to bias the annular valve 66,64 at an inner surface of the right end of the base component),
wherein, in an open position, the annular valve (66,64) is to allow flow from the one or more suction passageways 58 into the fluid cavity (i.e. into the part of the fluid cavity surrounding elements 64 & 66 of the valve), and wherein, in the closed position (i.e. the position illustrated in Fig 8), the annular valve is to seal the one or more suction passageways from the fluid cavity (i.e. by contacting valve seat 77 – Column 5 Line 24-29), and to allow flow through the fluid cavity via the central opening (i.e. allow flow through the fluid cavity identified in Attached Figure B when the discharge valve 112,54 is open and the inlet valve is closed; the annular valve 64 is an inlet valve, Column 2 Line 43-52, thus it inherently is opened during a suction stroke of the plunger, and closed during a compression stroke as known in the art – accordingly the fluid would flow through the fluid cavity via the central opening when the annular valve is in the closed position during the compression stroke).
Additionally Regarding Claim 1: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “an outer diameter of the plunger being greater than a diameter of the central opening”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the pump such that an outer diameter of the plunger 102 is greater than a diameter of the central opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (i.e. a mere change in the diameter of the plunger 102). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case the device of Buse USPN 3811801 would appear to function similarly given the claimed plunger outer diameter being greater than a diameter of the central opening and the modification would not appear to adversely affect the operation of the prior art device.
Further Regarding Claim 1: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “a diameter of the biasing element being substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the basing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to –design the annular valve such that a diameter of the biasing element is substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the biasing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having a diameter of the biasing element being substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the basing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component versus the design taught by Buse USPN 3811801. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that a diameter of the biasing element being substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the basing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0024 of the SPEC indicates that the biasing element 230 is used to move the valve to the closed position shown in Fig 4 (e.g. like the biasing element 110 which moves the valve to the closed position shown in Fig 8 as taught by Buse USPN 3811801). Thus, when the annular valve is designed to so that a diameter of the biasing element is substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the biasing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component the biasing element 110 of Buse USPN 3811801 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of moving the valve to the closed position.
Regarding Claim 2: wherein the annular valve, in the closed position (i.e. position shown in Fig 8), is to allow flow through the fluid cavity, from the first end to the second end of the cartridge body, via the central opening (see Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B; since the fluid passage identified in Attached Figure B extends between the first end and the second end, the annular valve (64,66) is an inlet valve, and in piston pumps like that of Buse – during operation of the pump, when the inlet valve is closed (like what is shown in Fig 8) the discharge valve (e.g. 112,54) is open so that the fluid can exit the compression chamber, it follows that during operation of the pump of Buse, during the compression stroke, fluid would be able to flow through the identified structure of the fluid cavity from the first end to the second end as claimed in order for the pumped fluid to leave the pump).
Regarding Claim 9: wherein the fluid cavity extends through the cartridge body (as seen in Attached Figure B) from the first end to the second end of the cartridge body (as seen in Attached Figure B).
Regarding Claim 16: A fluid pump (the fluid pump is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
a fluid end (the fluid end is defined by the sum of its parts) having a fluid end block (14 in Fig 4, and Figs 7-8) with a bore (bore = multi tired bore which receives the structure of element 38 in Figs 7-8), and a plunger 102 configured to reciprocate with respect to the bore (as understood from Figure 7-8);
a power end 12 operably connected to the plunger (the drive unit is known in the art to provide the motion for the operation of the plunger 102 of the reciprocating pump, thus the power end/drive unit 12 is inherently operably connected to the plunger 102 as claimed); and
a valve cartridge (the valve cartridge is defined by the sum of its parts and includes valve body 38), configured for insertion into and removal from the bore as a unit (given the structure illustrated in Figs 7-8 element 38 would be capable of being (i.e. configured for) inserted & removed from the bore as a unit as claimed), comprising:
a cartridge body 38 having a first end (Attached Figure B) and a second end opposite the first end (Attached Figure B);
a fluid cavity (Attached Figure B) defined in the cartridge body (Attached Figure B);
one or more passageways (58), defined through the cartridge body (Attached Figure B), that open into the fluid cavity (i.e. open into the part of the fluid cavity surrounding elements 64 & 66 of the valve; when the valve is not seated passages 58 are opened so that fluid can flow into the fluid cavity as understood from Attached Figure B); and
a valve assembly (the valve assembly is defined by the sum oof its parts and includes element 64) configured to control flow between the one or more passageways and the fluid cavity (i.e. control flow between the passages 58 and the articulated fluid cavity), wherein the valve assembly comprises:
an annular valve (annular valve = 64,66) having a central opening (Attached Figure A, Attached Figure B), a perimeter edge (Attached Figure A), a base component (base component = the bottom portion of element 64 and element 66, also see Attached Figure A), and a sealing surface (sealing surface = flat surface 77 in Fig 8) defined between the central opening and the perimeter edge (Attached Figure A), a diameter of the base component (diameter of the base component = inner diameter of element 66 of the base component in Attached Figure A; element 66 is identified as a cylindrical portion in Column 5 Line 10-21, thus the base component inherently has an inner diameter given what is shown in Fig 8) being configured to accommodate at least a portion of a plunger (plunger = piston 102 in Fig 8, a portion of the plunger = part of piston 102 located inside element 66 in Fig 8), and an outer diameter of the plunger (i.e. outer diameter of piston 102 in Fig 8) being similar to a diameter of the central opening (as seen in Attached Figure A and Fig 8 a diameter of the identified central opening is similar to an outer diameter of plunger 102) and less than the diameter of the base component (as seen in Attached Figure A and Fig 8 the outer diameter of the plunger 102 is less than the inner diameter of element 66); and
a biasing element (110) configured to bias the annular valve (64,66) to a closed position (as understood from Fig 8).
Additionally Regarding Claim 16: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “an outer diameter of the plunger being greater than a diameter of the central opening”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the pump such that an outer diameter of the plunger 102 is greater than a diameter of the central opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (i.e. a mere change in the diameter of the plunger 102). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case the device of Buse USPN 3811801 would appear to function similarly given the claimed plunger outer diameter being greater than a diameter of the central opening and the modification would not appear to adversely affect the operation of the prior art device.
Additionally Regarding Claim 16: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “an outer diameter of the plunger being greater than a diameter of the central opening”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to –design the pump such that an outer diameter of the plunger 102 is greater than a diameter of the central opening--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having an outer diameter of the plunger being greater than a diameter of the central opening versus the design taught by Buse USPN 3811801. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that an outer diameter of the plunger is greater than a diameter of the central opening and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0038 of the SPEC indicates that the valve is designed such that the suction valve assembly has a simple construction (e.g. like the suction valve in Fig 8 of Buse USPN 3811801). Thus, when the pump is designed such that an outer diameter of the plunger 102 is greater than a diameter of the central opening the suction valve of Buse USPN 3811801 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of having a simple construction – especially since the flowpath where fluid enters the valve from a radially outer location and exits the valve along a central axis of the valve, is similar to the flowpath in the instant application.
Regarding Claim 17: wherein the annular valve is to open during a suction stroke of the plunger (the annular valve 64,66 is an inlet valve, Column 2 Line 43-52, thus it inherently is opened during a suction stroke of the plunger, as known in the art) to allow flow from the one or more passageways into the fluid cavity (e.g. from 58 to the part of the fluid cavity surrounding elements 64 & 66 of the valve in Fig 8, Column 5 Line 24-29), and wherein the annular valve is to close during a discharge stroke of the plunger (the annular valve is an inlet valve, Column 2 Line 43-52, Column 5 Line 29-37, thus it inherently is closed during a discharge stroke of the plunger, as known in the art) to seal the one or more passageways from the fluid cavity (i.e. by contacting valve seat 77 – Column 5 Line 24-29), and to allow flow through the fluid cavity via the central opening and through an open discharge valve of the valve cartridge (discharge valve = 112,54; Column 4 Line 7-25, Column 5 Line 29-37, Fig 8; when the inlet valve is closed the fluid would inherently flow through the fluid cavity via the identified central opening and the open discharge valve in order to allow the fluid to exit the pump).
Regarding Claim 18: wherein the annular valve is to close during a discharge stroke of the plunger (the annular valve is an inlet valve, Column 2 Line 43-52, Column 5 Line 29-37, thus it inherently is closed during a discharge stroke of the plunger, as known in the art) to seal the one or more passageways from the fluid cavity (i.e. by contacting valve seat 77 – Column 5 Line 24-29), and to allow flow through the fluid cavity via the central opening and through an open discharge valve of the valve cartridge (as seen from Attached Figure B the fluid cavity includes the outlet side of the discharge valve 112,54 – thus when the suction valve is closed and the discharge valve is open, the fluid would inherently be able to flow through the fluid cavity via the central opening and through the open discharge valve as claimed), and wherein the annular valve is to open during a suction stroke of the plunger to allow flow from the one or more passageways into the fluid cavity (Column 5 Line 19-37).
Regarding Claim 19: wherein the central opening (Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B) is in a flow path through the fluid cavity (as understood in Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B the central opening forms a flow path through the articulated fluid cavity as claimed) in a direction from the first end to the second end of the cartridge body (as understood from Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B).
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse USPN 3811801 in view of Winn USPN 5230363. Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse USPN 3811801 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winn USPN 5230363. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse USPN 3811801 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Winn USPN 5230363.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Buse USPN 3811801 (Attached Figure A)
Regarding Claim 10: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the limitations: A check valve assembly (the check valve assembly is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
an annular valve 64 having a central opening (see Annotated Figure 8 of Buse USPN 3811801 (Attached Figure A) above), a perimeter edge (Attached Figure A), a base component (Attached Figure A; the base component of Buse is equivalent to the base component of the instant application), and a sealing surface (77, Column 3 Line 39-44) defined between the central opening and the perimeter edge (Attached Figure A), a diameter of the base component (diameter of the base component = inner diameter of element 66 of the base component in Attached Figure A; element 66 is identified as a cylindrical portion in Column 5 Line 10-21, thus the base component inherently has an inner diameter given what is shown in Fig 8) being configured to accommodate at least a portion of a plunger (plunger = piston 102 in Fig 8, a portion of the plunger = part of piston 102 located inside element 66 in Fig 8), and an outer diameter of the plunger (i.e. outer diameter of piston 102 in Fig 8) being similar to a diameter of the central opening (as seen in Attached Figure A and Fig 8 a diameter of the identified central opening is similar to an outer diameter of plunger 102) and less than the diameter of the base component (as seen in Attached Figure A and Fig 8 the outer diameter of the plunger 102 is less than the inner diameter of element 66). Buse USPN 3811801 is silent regarding the limitations: a first sealing insert embedded in the annular valve nearer to the central opening than to the perimeter edge; and a second sealing insert embedded in the annular valve nearer to the perimeter edge than to the central opening. The prior art of Winn USPN 5230363 which is directed to a suction valve for a piston pump (title, abstract) like Buse USPN 3811801, is noted.
However, Winn USPN 5230363 does disclose the limitations: a first sealing insert 52 embedded in the annular valve 44 nearer to the central opening (the central opening of valve 44 seen in Fig 1 & Fig 4) than to the perimeter edge (the perimeter edge = top edge of 44 located between surface 26 and circular surface which abuts elements 62, Fig 1, Fig 4; as seen in Fig 1 the first sealing insert 52 is closer to the central opening than the perimeter edge); and a second sealing insert 54 embedded in the annular valve nearer to the perimeter edge than to the central opening (as seen in Fig 1).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sealing surface 77 of Buse USPN 3811801 with the first and second sealing inserts (52,54) of Winn USPN 5230363 in order to greatly decrease wear on the suction valve (Column 2 Line 5-25).
Additionally Regarding Claim 10: Buse USPN 3811801 as modified by Winn USPN 5230363 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “an outer diameter of the plunger being greater than a diameter of the central opening”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the pump such that an outer diameter of the plunger 102 is greater than a diameter of the central opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (i.e. a mere change in the diameter of the plunger 102). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case the device of Buse USPN 3811801 would appear to function similarly given the claimed plunger outer diameter being greater than a diameter of the central opening and the modification would not appear to adversely affect the operation of the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 11: Buse USPN 3811801 is silent regarding the limitations: herein the sealing surface is sloped inwardly from the perimeter edge to the central opening.
However Winn USPN 5230363 does disclose the limitations: wherein the sealing surface (50,48,56,58) is sloped inwardly from the perimeter edge to the central opening (as seen in Fig 1).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the flat sealing surface 77 and the corresponding flat valve body 47 of the suction valve of Buse USPN 3811801 with the angled valve seating surface 26 and the corresponding angled sealing surface (50,48,56,58) of Winn USPN 5230363 in order to greatly decrease the wear on the suction valve seating surfaces (Column 2 Line 5-25).
Regarding Claim 12: Buse USPN 3811801 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the annular valve is in a shape of a conical frustum.
However Winn USPN 5230363 does disclose the limitations: wherein the annular valve is in a shape of a conical frustum (as seen in Fig 1).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the flat sealing surface 77 and the corresponding flat valve body 47 of the suction valve of Buse USPN 3811801 with the angled valve seating surface 26 and the corresponding angled sealing surface (50,48,56,58) of Winn USPN 5230363 in order to greatly decrease the wear on the suction valve seating surfaces (Column 2 Line 5-25).
Regarding Claim 13: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the limitations: wherein the base component extends from the perimeter edge of the annular valve (as seen in Attached Figure A).
Regarding Claim 14: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the limitations: wherein the base component comprises: a set of hoops (Attached Figure A) concentric with the central opening (Attached Figure A); and one or more alignment bars (Attached Figure A) that extend between hoops of the set of hoops (Attached Figure A).
Regarding Claim 15: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the limitations: further comprising: a biasing element 110 configured to act on the base component (Attached Figure A).
Further Regarding Claim 15: Buse USPN 3811801 as modified by Winn USPN 5230363 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “a diameter of the biasing element being substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the basing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to –design the annular valve such that a diameter of the biasing element is substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the biasing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having a diameter of the biasing element being substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the basing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component versus the design taught by Buse USPN 3811801 as modified by Winn USPN 5230363. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that a diameter of the biasing element being substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the basing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0024 of the SPEC indicates that the biasing element 230 is used to move the valve to the closed position shown in Fig 4 (e.g. like the biasing element 110 which moves the valve to the closed position shown in Fig 8 as taught by Buse USPN 3811801). Thus, when the annular valve is designed to have a diameter of the biasing element is substantially similar to an outer diameter of the base component such that the biasing element is configured to bias the annular valve at a radial end of the base component the biasing element 110 of Buse USPN 3811801 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of moving the valve to the closed position.
Regarding Claim 3: Buse USPN 3811801 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the fluid cavity defines a sloping region that slopes inwardly with respect to a direction from the first end to the second end of the cartridge body, and wherein the one or more suction passageways open into the sloping region of the fluid cavity.
However Winn USPN 5230363 does disclose the limitations: wherein the fluid cavity defines a sloping region (i.e. region defined by surfaces 24,26 in Fig 1) that slopes inwardly with respect to a direction from the first end to the second end of the cartridge body (Fig 1), and wherein the one or more suction passageways 22 open into the sloping region of the fluid cavity (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 2).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the flat sealing surface 77 and the corresponding flat valve body 47 of the suction valve of Buse USPN 3811801 with the angled valve seating surface 26 and the corresponding angled sealing surface (50,48,56,58) of Winn USPN 5230363 in order to greatly decrease the wear on the suction valve seating surfaces (Column 2 Line 5-25).
Regarding Claim 4: Buse USPN 3811801 as modified by Winn USPN 5230363 discloses the claimed limitations: wherein the sealing surface of the annular valve is sloped inwardly from the perimeter edge to the central opening such that the sloping region and the sealing surface have matching slopes (following the combination of Buse and Winn as explained above, the flat valve body and flat sealing surface of Buse would be replaced with the angled valve body and sealing surface of Winn; additionally as seen in Fig 1 of Winn the sloping region (i.e. the sloping portion of the fluid cavity that is defined by the angled valve sealing surface 26) and the sealing surface (i.e. 50,48,56,58 in Fig 1 of Winn) have matching slopes; Accordingly the matching slopes taught by Winn would be present in the combination of prior art).
Regarding Claim 5: Buse USPN 3811801 as modified by Winn USPN 5230363 discloses the claimed limitations: wherein the sloping region is a first sloping region (sloping region = first sloping region = the sloping portion of the fluid cavity that is defined by the angled valve sealing surface 26 taught by Winn – accordingly, when the valve of Buse is modified with the teachings of Winn the first sloping region would be where the valve body meets the sealing surface) and the fluid cavity (Buse – Attached Figure B) further defines a second sloping region (Buse – second sloping region = angled surface generally indicated by element 59 in Fig 8) that slopes inwardly with respect to a direction from the second end to the first end of the cartridge body (Buse –as seen in Fig 8), and wherein a fluid passageway region (Buse – fluid passageway region = region indicated by element 44 in Fig 8) defined in the fluid cavity (Attached Figure B) connects the first sloping region and the second sloping region (in the combination of prior art element 44/the fluid passageway region – would structurally connect the first sloping region to the second sloping region via the structure of cartridge body 38).
Regarding Claim 6: Buse USPN 3811801 discloses the claimed limitations: further comprising: a discharge valve assembly (112,54) configured to control flow from the fluid passageway region into the second sloping region (since valve assembly 112,54 controls the passage of fluid from 44 to 59 in Fig 8, it would inherently control flow from the fluid passageway 44 to the second sloping region 59 as claimed).
Regarding Claim 7: Buse USPN 3811801 is silent regarding the limitations: a first sealing insert embedded in the annular valve nearer to the central opening than to the perimeter edge; and a second sealing insert embedded in the annular valve nearer to the perimeter edge than to the central opening. The prior art of Winn USPN 5230363 which is directed to a suction valve for a piston pump (title, abstract) like Buse USPN 3811801, is noted.
However, Winn USPN 5230363 does disclose the limitations: a first sealing insert 52 embedded in the annular valve 44 nearer to the central opening (the central opening of valve 44 seen in Fig 1 & Fig 4) than to the perimeter edge (the perimeter edge = top edge of 44 located between surface 26 and circular surface which abuts elements 62, Fig 1, Fig 4; as seen in Fig 1 the first sealing insert 52 is closer to the central opening than the perimeter edge); and a second sealing insert 54 embedded in the annular valve nearer to the perimeter edge than to the central opening (as seen in Fig 1).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sealing surface 77 of Buse USPN 3811801 with the first and second sealing inserts (52,54) of Winn USPN 5230363 in order to greatly decrease wear on the suction valve (Column 2 Line 5-25).
Regarding Claim 8: Buse USPN 3811801 as modified by Winn USPN 5230363 discloses the claimed limitations: wherein, in the closed position of the annular valve (Buse – Fig 8 position | Winn – Fig 1 position), ends of the one or more suction passageways that lead into the fluid cavity (Buse – ends of passageways 58 that extend through valve seat 77 in Fig 8 | Winn – ends of passageways that open between elastomeric rings 52,54) are between the first sealing insert and the second sealing insert (Winn – as shown in Fig 1 of Winn; in the combination of prior art the ends of passageways 58 of Buse would be located between the first and second sealing inserts 52,54 given the teachings of Winn).
Regarding Claim 20: Buse USPN 3811801 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the fluid cavity defines a sloping region that slopes inwardly with respect to a direction from the first end to the second end of the cartridge body, and wherein the one or more suction passageways open into the sloping region of the fluid cavity.
However Winn USPN 5230363 does disclose the limitations: wherein the fluid cavity defines a sloping region (i.e. region defined by surfaces 24,26 in Fig 1) that slopes inwardly with respect to a direction from the first end to the second end of the cartridge body (Fig 1), and wherein the one or more suction passageways 22 open into the sloping region of the fluid cavity (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 2).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the flat sealing surface 77 and the corresponding flat valve body 47 of the suction valve of Buse USPN 3811801 with the angled valve seating surface 26 and the corresponding angled sealing surface (50,48,56,58) of Winn USPN 5230363 in order to greatly decrease the wear on the suction valve seating surfaces (Column 2 Line 5-25).
Further Regarding Claim 20: Buse USPN 3811801 as modified by Winn USPN 5230363 discloses the claimed limitations: wherein the sealing surface of the annular valve is sloped inwardly from the perimeter edge to the central opening such that the sloping region and the sealing surface have matching slopes (following the combination of Buse and Winn as explained above, the flat valve body and flat sealing surface of Buese would be replaced with the angled valve body and sealing surface of Winn; additionally as seen in Fig 1 of Winn the sloping region (i.e. the sloping portion of the fluid cavity that is defined by the angled valve sealing surface 26) and the sealing surface (i.e. 50,48,56,58 in Fig 1 of Winn) have matching slopes; Accordingly the matching slopes taught by Winn would be present in the combination of prior art).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as 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 the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights