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 Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of January 9, 2026 which amended claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 19 and 21.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 19, 2026. These drawings are approved.
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.
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) 1-4, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya (USPN 11,280,444) in view of Werner (USPN 2,211,249).
With regards to claims 1-3, Bhattacharya discloses a device for controlling operational vibrations of a pump (106) or pump assembly (104,106) arranged thereon, the device comprising: a mounting plate (labeled in annotated Figs. 1A & 1B below) configured to have the pump or pump assembly arranged on a surface thereof (see Fig. 1A), at least one support (labeled in annotated Figs. 1B) arranged between the mounting plate and a carrying surface (labeled in annotated Figs. 1c) to provide a distance (labeled in annotated Fig. 6C below) there between, the at least one support being configured to carry the weight of the mounting plate and the pump or pump assembly (inherent from the disclosure), at least one actuator (hydraulic jacks 112) configured to switch between: a first state in which the actuator (112) provides a connection (note col. 7 lines 30-50 which discuss the jacks engaging the structure) between the mounting plate and the carrying surface, and a second state (shown in Fig. 6C) in which there is no connection between the mounting plate and the carrying surface via the at least one actuator, and wherein activation of the at least one actuator to switch (via console/controller 118 in response to the resonance/vibration sensed in the Wheatstone bridges 114) between the first and the second states is controllable so that resonance characteristics of the pump or pump assembly during operation can be changed by the activation (see col. 7 lines 42-48).
Bhattacharya teaches that the at least one actuator are located with respect to a plane of extension and within the plane of extension at locations vertically beneath the load sensitive positions of a longitudinal structures as shown in Fig. 6C (see col. 8 lines 46-48)”; the load sensitive positions would depend upon the particular application or rotary equipment mounted on the top of the device and thus could vary from application to application. Further, the location would also be represented by the cracks and structural anomalies discussed in the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION”. As made clear in the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section the cracks and their locations are difficult to detect and can occur at any location.
Bhattacharya does not specifically set forth if the actuators are fixed at a particular location once an anomaly occurs or if the actuators are adjustable or movable within the plane of extension of the mounting plate so that the same device can be used for different applications by adjusting the location of the at least one actuator accordingly.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Werner discloses a hydraulic actuator/jack (see Fig. 1) having a flat and extensive base (10) that allows the location of the hydraulic actuator/jack to be adjusted within a mounting plane that the base would rest against, such as the plane of extension.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the base of the hydraulic actuators 112 of Bhattacharya as taught by Werner in order to simply and easily allow the hydraulic actuators 112 to be located in an adjustable manner at locations of cracks, anomalies and other load sensitive locations.
With regards to claims 4 and 18, the connection between the pump assembly and the actuator in the first state is a physical connection as described at col. 7 lines 35-42.
With regards to claims 7 and 21, Werner discloses wherein the at least one actuator includes a spindle (13,14) that remains in a given position without the need for continued supply of power (The valve 24 and seat 26 is configured to be closed via threading and handle 20; when in the closed position oil, which is incompressible, is prevented from escaping or exiting from the cylinder and the spindle will be locked in place.
With regards to claims 12 and 23, Bhattacharya discloses that there can be a plurality of actuators that are individually controllable actuators (112-1 thru 112-N, see col. 3 lines 23-29).
With regards to claims 13 and 24, Bhattacharya disclose the device of claims 1 and 3 and further discloses wherein the device is configured to monitor the resonance characteristics (note the Wheatstone bridges/sensors 114) of the pump or pump assembly during operation and to use the output of the monitoring (the output of the sensors is received at console/controller 118 which switch on the individual actuators, see col. 3 lines 23-29 and col. 7 lines 5-11) to automatically adjust settings of the device when necessary to ensure that vibrational requirements are fulfilled.
With regards to 14, 17, 25 and 26, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described (note all limitations of claim 1, 3, 13 and 24 are taught as set forth above) in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 8 and 22; and, 5 and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya in view of Werner, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Hodgson et al (USPN 5,174,552).
With regards to claims 8 and 22, as set forth above Bhattacharya in view of Werner teaches the invention as disclosed in claims 1 and 3 but does not disclose that the actuators are electromagnets. Hodgson et al disclose a fluid machine with active vibration dampening (see title) which utilizes an electromagnetic actuator (36 in Figs. 1,3 and 6) as an active damper.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute an electromagnetic actuator of Hodgson et al for the hydraulic actuator of Bhattacharya since hydraulic and electromagnetic actuators are recognized as equivalence for their use in the resonance avoidance art and selection of either of these known equivalents to stiffen the structure to avoid resonance would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
With regards to claims 5 and 19, as set forth above Bhattacharya discloses the invention as disclosed in claims 1 and 3 but does not disclose the location of the at least one actuator with respect to the pump or pump assembly is adjustable by providing the mounting plate and/or the carrying surface with a plurality of mounting holes or brackets for fastening of the at least one actuator. Additionally, col. 7 lines 35-38 describe that the actuators can be placed/inserted into the hollow part of the base frame, i.e., along the carrying surface of Fig. 6c; and, as noted above, col. 8 lines 46-48 notes that the actuators/hydraulic jacks “can also be placed vertically beneath the load sensitive positions of a longitudinal structures as shown in Fig. 6C”.
Hodgson et al disclose a machine in the form of fluid mount (10) which vibrates during operation and can have actuators 36 mounted in different locations (note the different locations shown in the annotated figures below) by holes (labeled in the annotated figures below) and brackets (labeled in the annotated figures below) in order to dampen the vibration.
PNG
media_image2.png
316
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
180
303
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of utilizing holes and brackets to mount actuators used in vibration control in required positions, as taught by Hodgson et al, to improve the placement of the actuators in the required locations, such as below the load sensitive positions, of Bhattacharya for the predictable result of securing the actuators in the required positions while in a vibrational environment. KSR Int’l C. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya in view of Werner, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of CN 111188796 A (hereafter CN ‘796).
As set forth above Bhattacharya in view of Werner teaches the invention as disclosed in claims 1 and 3 but does not disclose that the supports are adjustable. CN ‘796 discloses a support platform (2,11 see Fig. 1) which includes a support plate 11 holding the pump 1 assembly 10, active vibration dampers (4,5,6,7,8) and adjustable support mechanisms (12,13) for the support 11.
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize adjustable supports in Bhattacharya in order to allow for proper and secure alignment when connecting the pump to the piping at the location of operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Bhattacharya reference alone as applied in the prior rejection of record.
Additionally, in the last paragraph of page 12 of the REMARKS and in the first full paragraph of page 13, the applicant argues that the Bhattacharya actuators are “permanently fitted to the structural members” (pg. 12, line 26) or “mechanically locked into fixed positions” (pg. 13, line 3). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bhattacharya does not discuss permanently fixing the actuators at specific locations and is silent with regards to whether the actuators are fixed or movable. With regards to the mounting of the actuators being located within opposite ends of the pipe this embodiment of the actuators is located in a horizontal manner between the frame members and is not located in the plane of extension of the carrying surface.
With regards to the applicant’s arguments in the second full paragraph of page 13 that the Bhattacharya device is not disclosed “’for different application’—such as adapting the same device for use with different types or sizes of pumps” this is not found persuasive. The Examiner notes that the “different applications” limitation is much broader than argued and not limited to conditions such as use with different types or sizes of pumps. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the “different applications” limitation is directed to the use with different size rotating structures) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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
CGF
June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights