DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 15 August 2024. Claims 1 – 15 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 – 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 5, the phrase “at least on of said” in Line 2 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --at least one of said--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 – 15 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 Claim 1, this claim has the limitation “said inlet section housing” in Line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --said inlet suction housing-- will be assumed instead.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,078,155 B2 in view of Pham (PG Pub US 20240410362 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Claim 1 of the patent discloses all the limitations except for a lifting mechanism.
However, Pham discloses a lifting mechanism (160; paragraph [0091]; Figure 6B) for lifting/lowering an inlet suction housing (fluid end 74) of a pump (11) for assembly/disassembly of the inlet suction housing with the pump (Abstract, paragraph [0090]), the lifting mechanism (160) engaged to at least one of said base frame bars (162), said lifting mechanism (160) being constructed and arranged to engage said inlet suction housing (74) when said lifting mechanism is in an elevated position (assembly position in Figure 6A), and said lifting mechanism lowering said inlet suction housing away from said intermediate housing (“lower portion of pump frame 76” – paragraph [0086]) when said lifting mechanism is actuated toward a descended position (Figure 6A).
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 modify the double disc pump assembly of the patent claim to incorporate a lifting mechanism as taught by Pham for the purpose of elevate/lower the inlet suction housing into an assembly/disassembly position, thus saving manual effort required during assembly/disassembly.
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Pham discloses a lifting mechanism base (122; paragraph [0082]; Figures 6C, 8), a plurality of protective barrier walls (128; paragraph [0083]; Figure 7) engaged to said lifting mechanism base (122), and a lifting mechanism support surface (126) engaged to said plurality of protective barrier walls (128) opposite to said lifting mechanism base (122).
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 2, and Pham discloses at least one lifting mechanism traverse support (138; paragraph [0085]) engaged to said lifting mechanism base (122), said at least one lifting mechanism traverse support (138) being disposed between at least two of said base frame bars (136; Figure 8, only one is labeled).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and Pham discloses that said at least two of said brace frame bars (136) are parallel to each other (Figure 8) and said at least one lifting mechanism traverse support (138) is fixedly engaged to said at least two of said base frame bars (136).
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 4, and Pham discloses an actuation nut (this is an implied part of the jackscrew mechanism in paragraph [100], a power screw typically engages a moving nut disposed on the lift) traversing at least one of said plurality of protective barrier walls (128).
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and Pham discloses a pair of lower axels (124; paragraph [0082]; Figure 10C) moveably engaged (see different positions thereof in Figures 10B and 10C) to said lifting mechanism base (122).
Claims 7 – 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,078,155 B2 in view of Pham (PG Pub US 20240410362 A1) and further in view of Chipperfield (US Patent 5,855,359 A).
In Re Claim 7, the patent claim and Pham discloses all the limitations of Claim 6 but they do not disclose a pair of upper axels movably engaged to an underside of said lifting mechanism support surface.
However, Figure 2 of Chipperfield discloses a lifting mechanism comprising an actuation nut (81, 25) traversing at least one (18) of protective barrier walls (18, 19, 28, 29, 30), a pair of lower axels (63, 70) moveably engaged to said lifting mechanism base (12), a pair of upper axels (57, 62) movably engaged to an underside of said lifting mechanism support surface (top surface of 13)(Column 4, Lines 4 – 34; Column 5, Lines 3 – 63; Column 6, Lines 6 – 31).
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 broadly disclosed jackscrew mechanism of Pham in the device of patent claim / Pham with the specifically disclosed jackscrew mechanism of Chipperfield because it is only a matter of substituting a broadly disclosed jackscrew mechanism (Pham) with the specifically disclosed jackscrew mechanism (Chipperfield), so the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 7, and Chipperfield discloses a pair of pivotally interconnected lifting arms (54, 55) moveably engaged to said pair of lower axels and said pair of upper axels (via 64).
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 8, and Chipperfield discloses each of said pair of lower axels (63, 70) and said pair of upper axels (57, 62) have opposite ends, and each of said pair of pivotally interconnected lifting arms (54, 55) are rotatably engaged to one of said opposite ends.
In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and Chipperfield discloses a lifting drive (80) movably engaged to said pair of lower axels (63, 70).
In Re Claim 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, and Chipperfield discloses that said lifting drive (80) is movably engaged to said actuation nut (81, 25), said actuation nut (81, 25) being releasably and rotatably engaged to a rotation device (Column 5, Line 62: “ratchet”).
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Chipperfield discloses that said rotation device (“ratchet”) imparts motion to said lifting drive (80) and said lifting drive moves one of said pair of lower axels (70) towards the other (63) of said pair of lower axels (when the lifting mechanism base 12 is raised).
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 12, and Chipperfield discloses that said rotation device (“ratchet”) imparts motion to said lifting drive (80) and said lifting drive moves one of said pair of lower axels (70) away from the other (63) of said pair of lower axels (when the lifting mechanism base 12 is lowered).
In Re Claim 14, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Chipperfield discloses that said rotation device (“ratchet”) imparts motion to said lifting drive (80) and said lifting drive moves one of said pair of upper axels (62) towards the other (57) of said pair of upper axels (when the lifting mechanism base 12 is raised).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 14, and Chipperfield discloses that said rotation device (“ratchet”) imparts motion to said lifting drive (80) and said lifting drive moves one of said pair of upper axels (62) away from the other (57) of said pair of upper axels (when the lifting mechanism base 12 is lowered).
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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights