DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 13 March 2024. Claims 1 – 10 are pending and currently being examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 322, 350, P4, R1, D2, D4, 320a, 320b, F, P3, P5, R2, D1, D3, D5. 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. 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
Claims 1 – 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 1, the phrase “through which fluid is introduced and discharged through each of the multiple discharge valves” would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --into which fluid discharged through each of the multiple discharge valves is introduced--.
In Re Claim 6, the word “Fluid” in Line 3 does not need to be capitalized and should be changed to --fluid--.
In Re Claim 9, the phrase “vortex plates forming vortices” would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --vortex plates that form vortices--.
In Re Claim 10, the phrase “the incoming fixed fluid” would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --the incoming mixed fluid--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 3 – 10 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.
In Re Claims 3 and 4, the limitation “rotating housing” is indefinite because it comprises a stationary anti-detachment (230) that has the fit hole of Claim 4. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the following limitation will be assumed instead: --housing containing a rotating element-- in Line 2 of Claim 3. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the phrase “rotating housing that pumps each diaphragm” will be replaced with the phrase --housing containing the rotating element actuates each diaphragm--.
In Re Claim 3, this claim recites the limitation “the reciprocating shaft” in Lines 9 – 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the phrase “and bearings inserted into the guide rail; and reciprocating shafts connected to the Bearing at one end and the diaphragm at the other end; and the rotating housing that pumps each diaphragm by moving the bearings” will be replaced with the phrase --and a bearing inserted into the guide rail; and a reciprocating shaft connected to the bearing at one end and one of the diaphragms at the other end; and the rotating housing that actuates the one of the diaphragms by moving the bearing--.
In Re Claim 4, the limitation “a diaphragm pump with multiple discharge tubes” is a second positive recitation of the same limitation in the preamble of Claim 1, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the diaphragm pump in this claim is the same as the one in Claim 1.
In Re Claim 5, this claim recites the limitation “the multiple nozzles” in Lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --multiple nozzles-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claims 6 – 8, the limitations “the inner nozzle” lack antecedent basis because parent claim 5 recites the possibility of more than one inner nozzle. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the parent claim 5 only recites one inner nozzle.
In Re Claim 6, this claim recites the limitation “the mixed flow channel” in Lines 5 – 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the phrase “a mixed fluid channel” in Lines 1 – 2 will be replaced with the phrase --a mixed flow channel--.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ciavarella (PG Pub US 20190307297 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Ciavarella discloses a diaphragm pump (Figure 3) which has multiple discharge tubes (520, 523/302 in Figures 6, 7; or 1101, 1103 in Figure 11) and discharges fluid from each of the discharge tubes (paragraph [0029]), comprising: a powertrain housing (650) that provides rotational power; a motion conversion housing (301 contains motion converting mechanism 658) that converts the rotational power received through the powertrain housing into a linear reciprocating motion (paragraph [0030]); and a pump housing (the portion of the casing above 301 in Figure 3) that introduces and discharges fluid by the linear reciprocating motion provided by the motion conversion housing (301); wherein the pump housing comprises: a diaphragm frame (310) having multiple diaphragms (432, 434, 436) including a first diaphragm (432) and a second diaphragm (434 or 436) that are pumped by the linear reciprocating motion provided by the motion conversion housing (301); a pressure frame (not explicitly labeled in Figure 3, it’s the cylindrical portion that has 304 and 306, it forms the border of pump chambers 412, 414, 416) having multiple pressure chambers (412, 414, 416) including a first pressure chamber (412) and a second pressure chamber (414 or 416) in which fluid is introduced and discharged according to the pumping of each diaphragm; a separation frame (308) having multiple sets of suction valves (418A, 418B, 418C) and discharge valves (623A, 623B, 623C) including a first suction valve (418A), a second suction valve (418B or 418C), a first discharge valve (623A), and a second discharge valve (623B or 623C) that control the fluid inflow and outflow of each pressure chamber (412, 414, 416); a discharge frame (303) having multiple discharge tubes (520, 523/302 in Figures 6, 7; or 1101, 1103 in Figure 11) including a first discharge tube (520) and a second discharge tube (523/302) into which fluid discharged through each of the multiple discharge valves (623A, 623B, 623C) is introduced (these tubes are connected to the tubes-conduit in Figure 11, labeled 33 in Figure 1); a first flow channel (1101; Figure 11) leading from the first suction valve (418A), the first pressure chamber (412), the first discharge valve (623A), and the first discharge tube (520); and a second flow channel (1103; Figure 11) leading from the second suction valve (418B or 418C), the second pressure chamber (414 or 416), the second discharge valve (623B or 623C), and the second discharge tube (523/302); (paragraphs [0023],[0025],[0026],[0027],[0029],[0030]; Figures 3, 6, 7, 8, 11).
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savage (US Patent 3,286,933 A).
In Re Claims 1 and 5, Savage discloses a diaphragm pump (Figure 1) which has multiple discharge tubes (35, 36) and discharges fluid from each of the discharge tubes (Column 2, Lines 36 – 40), comprising: a powertrain housing (16) that provides rotational power; a motion conversion housing (containing labels 19 – 23 in Figure 2) that converts the rotational power received through the powertrain housing into a linear reciprocating motion; and a pump housing (“A”, “B”, 24, 25; Figure 1) that introduces (via 33, 34) and discharges (via 35, 36) fluid by the linear reciprocating motion provided by the motion conversion housing; wherein the pump housing comprises: a diaphragm frame having multiple diaphragms including a first diaphragm (29 in “A”) and a second diaphragm (29 in “B”) that are pumped by the linear reciprocating motion provided by the motion conversion housing; a pressure frame having multiple pressure chambers including a first pressure chamber (26 in “A”) and a second pressure chamber (26 in “B”) in which fluid is introduced and discharged according to the pumping of each diaphragm (29); a separation frame having multiple sets of suction valves and discharge valves including a first suction valve (61 in “A”), a second suction valve (61 in “B”), a first discharge valve (62 in “A”), and a second discharge valve (62 in “B”) that control the fluid inflow and outflow of each pressure chamber (26); a discharge frame having multiple discharge tubes including a first discharge tube (35) and a second discharge tube (36) into which fluid discharged through each of the multiple discharge valves (62) is introduced; a first flow channel (inside 35) leading from the first suction valve (61 in “A”), the first pressure chamber (26 in “A”), the first discharge valve (62 in “A”), and the first discharge tube (35); and a second flow channel (inside 36) leading from the second suction valve (61 in “B”), the second pressure chamber (26 in “B”), the second discharge valve (62 in “B”), and the second discharge tube (36), wherein multiple nozzles (51, 52; Figure 3) connected to the multiple discharge tubes (35, 36; 35 is connected to 51, and 36 is connected to 52) are characterized by further comprising nozzles having one outer nozzle (52) and one or more inner nozzles (51); (Column 2, Line 1 – Column 3, Line 75; Figures 1 – 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciavarella (PG Pub US 20190307297 A1) in view of Hines (PG Pub US 20150226207 A1).
In Re Claim 2, Ciavarella discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not disclose gear reduction.
However, Hines discloses a powertrain housing (34, 36) which comprises: a power frame (34) that provides rotational force; a gear reduction frame (36) that increases the rotational torque of the power frame (34); and a power shaft (98) that provides the reduced rotation through the gear reduction frame to the motion conversion housing (38) (paragraphs [0017],[0019]; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the gear reduction frame as taught by Hines between the motion conversion housing and the power frame of Ciavarella for the purpose of providing increased torque, thus allowing a smaller motor to handle heavy loads.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciavarella (PG Pub US 20190307297 A1) in view of Yamamoto (PG Pub US 20040131472 A1).
In Re Claims 3 and 4, Ciavarella discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not disclose rotating frame having a guide rail.
However, Yamamoto discloses that the motion conversion housing (341; Figure 9) is a housing containing a rotating element (60) coupled to and rotated by the powertrain housing (“M”), and comprises: a rotating frame (60) having a guide rail (50, 501, 502) formed with a curvature (cylindrical contour) and recessed along an outer circumferential surface (outer surface of 50); and bearing (71, 63) inserted into the guide rail (50, 501, 502); and a reciprocating shaft (70) connected to the bearing at one end and one of the diaphragms (56) at the other end; and the housing containing the rotating element (60) that actuates said one of the diaphragms (56) by moving the bearing (71, 63) along the inside of the guide rail (50, 501, 502) and making the reciprocating shaft perform a linear reciprocating motion when the rotating frame (60) rotates, the housing containing the rotating element (60) is comprised of: a fit hole (hole in 69 through which 70 protrudes) through which the reciprocating shaft (70) penetrates; and an anti-detachment frame (69) that allows the reciprocating shaft (70) to move only inside the fit hole; (paragraphs [0045],[0072],[0073],[0074],[0076]; Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the motion conversion mechanism (654; also known as wobble plate and cam bearing assembly) between the powertrain and diaphragm of Ciavarella with the rotating frame, anti-detachment frame, reciprocating shaft/bearing of Yamamoto because it is only a matter of substituting on motion conversion mechanism with another motion conversion mechanism, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciavarella (PG Pub US 20190307297 A1) in view of Roe (US Patent 6,010,083 A).
In Re Claim 5, Although Ciavarella discloses a mixing portion (801), Ciavarella discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but it does not disclose that the mixing portion specifically comprises an inner nozzle and an outer nozzle.
However, Roe discloses an eductor (Figure 1) which entrains air (from 18) with a liquid (in 12) via an inner nozzle (16) and an outer nozzle (22)(Column 3, Lines 1 – 55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the mixing portion (801; Figure 8) of Ciavarella with the eductor (16/22) comprising an inner nozzle and outer nozzle as taught by Roe because it is only a matter of substituting one mixing configuration with another mixing configuration, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B). Evidence of predictability is provided by Ciavarella in paragraph [0045]: “The mixing portion 801 is an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. It should be understood, however, that any suitable mixing portion can be used that allows the liquid to mix with the air”.
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and Roe further discloses a mixed flow channel (22, 24, 26) is formed inside the outer nozzle and wherein the fluid injected from the inner nozzle (16) is sprayed into the inside of the outer nozzle (22) and mixed with the fluid moving inside the outer nozzle (air) to form a mixed fluid (liquid and air) in the mixed flow channel (22, 24, 26)( Column 3, Lines 1 – 55; Figure 1).
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and Roe further discloses that the nozzle outlet of the inner nozzle (16) is characterized by the formation of one or more venturi outlet (tip of 16) having a narrower cross-sectional area (as depicted at the tip).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciavarella (PG Pub US 20190307297 A1) in view of Roe (US Patent 6,010,083 A) and further in view of Garnier (US Patent 3,735,778 A).
In Re Claim 7, Ciavarella and Roe disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, but they do not disclose multiple pores.
However, Figure 1 of Garnier discloses that the nozzle outlet of the inner nozzle (7, 6, 5) is characterized by being composed of multiple pores (81, 82, 83) formed along the outer circumferential surface of the inner nozzle (7, 6, 5)(Column 3, Lines 22 – 47; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the inner nozzle of Roe in the apparatus of Ciavarella / Rose with the inner nozzle of Garnier for the purpose of forming a very fine homogeneous mixture of two fluids (Column 1, Lines 34 – 67 of Garnier).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciavarella (PG Pub US 20190307297 A1) in view of Roe (US Patent 6,010,083 A) and further in view of Simmons (US Patent 3,980,233 A).
In Re Claim 9, Ciavarella and Roe disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, but they do not disclose vortex plates.
However, Figure 2 of Simmons discloses one or more vortex plates (16) that form vortices (described as “swirler vanes”) are additionally included between the inner nozzle (2) and the outer nozzle (15) (Column 2, Line 60 – Column 3, Line 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to additionally include vortex plates as taught by Simmons between the inner nozzle and outer nozzle of Joe in the apparatus of Ciavarella / Roe for the purpose of eliminating variations in air velocity (Abstract of Simmons).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciavarella (PG Pub US 20190307297 A1) in view of Roe (US Patent 6,010,083 A) and further in view of Crowl (US Patent 5,906,319 A).
In Re Claim 10, Ciavarella and Roe disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, but they do not disclose a brush head.
However, Crowl discloses the nozzle housing (70, 72) further comprises a brush head (76) connected to the outer nozzle outlet (72); and the brush head comprises a head flow channel (inside 72) through which the incoming mixed fluid (fluid is mixed at venturi 56) moves, and includes spray holes (not labeled but depicted in Figure 6) for the mixed fluid to be sprayed outward along the head flow channel (Column 7, Lines 9 – 17; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to additionally include the brush head as taught by Crowl to the apparatus of Ciavarella / Roe for the purpose of providing additional cleaning functionality to the apparatus.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746