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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “self-locking feature”, the spindle, and the plural holes or brackets must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to the claims is withdrawn in view of the fact that the claims are clear and the applicant may be their own lexicographer.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: “self-locking feature” in claims 7 and 21.
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.
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 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 7 and 21 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. The applicant has not shown possession of a “self-locking feature” or described what structure would accomplish the “self-locking” (function) of the spindle “that remains in a given position without the need for continued supply of power” (desired result). The only disclosure provided is at page 7 lines 18-22 which merely sets forth that there is a structure that can lock the spindle in place without the need for a continued supply of power. Because the structure making up the self-locking feature which can accomplish the function and desired result set forth above is not disclosed the applicant has not shown possession of the invention set forth in claims 7 and 21.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14 and 17-26 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 is vague and indefinite because in newly amended lines 11-13 are confusing. Specifically, it is unclear if “the same device” is the device of lines 1 and 2 or a different device. In line 13 it is unclear what the “built-in features” represent structurally and what specifically they are associated with. As written the “built-in features” could be one of the previously set forth structures, a structural part of one of the other elements or the device, or a completely different structure separate from the device. Claim 3 at lines 16-18 is similarly confusing.
Claims 7 and 21 are vague and indefinite because the claim limitation “self-locking ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of the structures that perfroms the function set forth, i.e., self-locking. The only disclosure is provided at lines 18-22 and only a description of the function is set forth without a clear description of the structure that performs it. Further, the language “self-locking feature that is obtained with a spindle” makes it unclear if the spindle is part of the “self-locking feature” or is the element acted upon by the “self-locking feature”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bhattacharya (USPN 11,280,444).
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, 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); and
wherein the location of the at least one actuator with respect to a plane of extension of the mounting plate is adjustable (This limitation is a broad limitation and the switching of the actuators between the first and the second states would satisfy such a broad limitation, for example by the end of the actuator moving towards or away from the mounting plate as labeled in Fig. 6C below representing the location of the end of the actuator being adjusted with respect to the mounting plate; additionally, the Bhattacharya teaches at col. 8 lines 46-48 that the actuators/hydraulic jacks “can also be placed vertically beneath the load sensitive positions of a longitudinal structures as shown in Fig. 6C”; the load sensitive positions would depend upon the particular application or rotary equipment mounted on the top of the device and the location would also be represented by the cracks and structural anomalies discussed in the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION”); so that the same device can be used for different applications by adjusting the device itself accordingly via built-in features (the “built-in features” being represented by the second signals discussed in col. 3 lines 5-23, and by the size and structure of the actuator that allows it to be placed vertically under a load sensitive position).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 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) 7 and 21, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya in view of Doman et al (USPN 10,161,491).
With regards to claims 7 and 21, as set forth above Bhattacharya discloses the invention as disclosed in claims 1 and 3 but does not disclose that the at least one actuator includes a self-locking feature that is obtained with a spindle that remains in a given position without the need for continued supply of power. Doman et al disclose actuator having a spindle 12 having a “self-locking feature” (see the Title, as understood).
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 actuator having a spindle with self-locking feature for an actuator such as taught by Bhattacharya since each of the noted actuators provide a linear force upon actuation (see the field of the invention section in Doman et al) and are recognized as equivalence for their use in the actuation art and selection of any of these known equivalents to provide a linear force would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
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 Hodgson et al (USPN 5,174,552).
With regards to claims 8 and 22, as set forth above Bhattacharya discloses 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 CN 111188796 A (hereafter CN ‘796).
As set forth above Bhattacharya discloses 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 January 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 7 and 21 and the previously set forth rejections under 35 USC 112b the applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image4.png
242
830
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A mere sentence in the disclosure setting forth how an undisclosed structure is intended to operate does not provide a clear written description or definiteness; and in view of the fact that the prior art does not provide a standardized teaching of what such a structure would be the claimed structure cannot clearly be understood, nor has applicant shown possession of such claimed limitation.
With regards to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and the newly amended limitations the Applicant argues, on pages 9 and 10, that Bhattacharya does not disclose “wherein the location of the at least one actuator with respect to the pump is adjustable so that the same device can be used for different applications by adjusting the device itself accordingly via built-in features.” The Applicant further points various structures such as holes brackets, discussed in the specification, and even imagines the use of rails, clamps and screws in the first full paragraph of page 10. As noted in the newly added portions of the rejections above which address the amend limitation, the claimed feature set forth is broader than argued by the applicant. In particular, 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., the holes brackets, rails, clamps and screws and the noted effect of adjustable fastening) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Su discloses a passive active mount for vibration control having actuators mounted via brackets.
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 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
February 15, 2026