DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As discussed below (see paragraphs 3-16), the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/107,374, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, Provisional Application No. 61/107,374 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/143,910, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, Provisional Application No. 61/143,910 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/176,194, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, Provisional Application No. 61/176,194 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/251,597, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, Provisional Application No. 61/251,597 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. PCT/US2009/005740, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/005740 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 12/733,643, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, non-provisional Application No. 12/733,643 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 13/837,331, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, non-provisional Application No. 13/837,331 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 14/050,586, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, non-provisional Application No. 14/050,586 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 15/442,162, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, non-provisional Application No. 15/442,162 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 15/908,008, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, non-provisional Application No. 15/908,008 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/248,766, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, non-provisional Application No. 17/248,766 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/122,863, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 6, non-provisional Application No. 18/122,863 fails to provide adequate support for all of the specified features of the “bearing” element, including the “inner race”, the “outer race”, the “plurality of rolling element bearings” and the interrelated details and limitations thereof.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
16. The first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time -
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 wherein the effective filing date is:
(i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(ii) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); or
(B) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time a claim as defined in paragraph (A), above.
The present application filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA because the priority or benefit application(s) filed before March 16, 2013 do not provide support for all of the claims in the present application. As discussed above in paragraphs 3-15 of the instant Office action, claim 6 is not supported by any such earlier application.
Please see 37 CFR 1.55(j), 1.78(a)(6) and 1.78(d)(6) for requirements regarding statements provided by applicants in patent applications that contain or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention as defined in paragraph (A) above.
Information Disclosure Statement
17. The IDS forms filed on September 5, 2024 and December 12, 2024 are hereby acknowledged and have been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the aforementioned IDS forms. It is noted that Foreign Patent Document Citation No. 3 (JP S59065695) on the signed copy of one of the IDS forms filed on September 5, 2024 has been lined through because a copy of this document can neither be located within the file of the instant application, nor within the files of any of the applications from which the instant application claims priority.
Drawings
18. 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 following recited features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The features of the “bearing”, which “includes an inner race, an outer race mounted to the connecting rod, and a plurality of rolling element bearings configured to rotate between the inner race and the outer race” as specified in claim 6, are not shown in the originally filed drawings.
The feature wherein the “second axis” (as defined by the “wobble seat”) as being “transverse to the first axis”, as specified in claim 7, is not shown in the originally filed drawings.
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.
Specification
19. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The claim term “shaft”, in the context as used throughout the claims, does not find clear and proper antecedent basis in the specification. It is noted that the claimed “shaft” is understood to be one and the same as “rod 100”, as defined in the specification. And while the term “shaft” does appear in the specification, the word “shaft” is used for designating other elements, and not the actual element understood to be the “shaft” of the claims.
The claim terms “inner race”, “outer race” and “rolling element bearings”, as recited in claim 6, do not find clear and proper antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
20. 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.
21. Claim 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.
Regarding claim 1, on line 11, the recitation, “the extending along a first axis” renders the claim unclear. This recitation seems to either be recited with unclear syntax or is incomplete and missing some other words intended to be in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation that the “land” has “a wobble seat oriented along a second axis, the second axis transverse to the first axis” is unclear, particularly in light of the originally filed disclosure. The “wobble seat” of the disclosed device is shown in (at least) Figs. 6A and 6B, at reference number “136”. If rod/shaft element “100” extends along a “first axis”, as apparently required by claim 1, it is unclear how one could reasonably characterize “wobble seat 136” as being oriented along a second axis which is “transverse to the first axis”, as recited in claim 7. It should be noted that the limitation in question with respect to claim 7 is not mentioned at all in the originally filed specification, and thus the specification lends no clarity to this issue.
Double Patenting
22. 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.
23. Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-42 of U.S. Patent No. 8,596,555. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the aforementioned patent include each of the essentially recited elements of the instant application claims, as set forth below:
As to claim 1, see (at least) patented claims 1, 13-15 and 33.
As to claim 2, see (at least) patented claims 13 and 35.
As to claim 3, see (at least) patented claims 15 and 33.
As to claim 4, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims.
As to claim 5, see (at least) patented claims 15 and 33.
As to claim 6, the recited details of the “bearing” were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and are thus obvious.
As to claim 7, see (at least) patented claims 15 and 33.
As to claim 8, see (at least) patented claims 15 and 33.
As to claim 9, the recited limitation is merely the result of forming in one piece an article which is formed in two pieces of the patented claims, which was obvious and well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, and as such involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 10, see (at least) patented claims 26 and 28.
As to claim 11, see (at least) patented claims 26 and 28, and note that the “gear reduction system” of the patented claims implies at least a second gear element in the manner recited in the claim.
As to claim 12, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims.
As to claim 13, see (at least) patented claims 1 and 33.
As to claim 14, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims as being “hand held”.
As to claim 15, see (at least) patented claim 11.
24. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,016,599. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the aforementioned patent include each of the essentially recited elements of the instant application claims, as set forth below:
As to claim 1, see (at least) patented claim 1, and note that using “electric” power for the “primary drive element” of the patented claims was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, and is thus obvious.
As to claim 2, see (at least) patented claims 13-16.
As to claim 3, see (at least) patented claims 11, 12 and 15.
As to claim 4, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims.
As to claim 5, see (at least) patented claim 1.
As to claim 6, see (at least) patented claims 3 and 9.
As to claim 7, see (at least) patented claims 1-10 .
As to claim 8, see (at least) patented claims 1-10.
As to claim 9, see (at least) patented claim 8.
As to claim 10, see (at least) patented claims 1 and 2.
As to claim 11, see (at least) patented claims 1 and 2, and note that the “input gear” of the patented claims implies at least a second gear element being in operative connection thereto in the manner recited in the claim.
As to claim 12, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims.
As to claim 13, see (at least) patented claims 1 and 18.
As to claim 14, see (at least) patented claim 18.
25. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,604,235. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the aforementioned patent include each of the essentially recited elements of the instant application claims, as set forth below:
As to claim 1, see (at least) patented claims 1 and 7-9.
As to claim 2, see (at least) patented claims 7 and 8.
As to claim 3, see (at least) patented claim 9.
As to claim 4, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims.
As to claim 5, see (at least) patented claim 9.
As to claim 6, the recited details of the “bearing” were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and are thus obvious.
As to claim 7, see (at least) patented claim 9.
As to claim 8, see (at least) patented claim 9.
As to claim 9, the recited limitation is merely the result of forming in one piece an article which is formed in two pieces of the patented claims, which was obvious and well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, and as such involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 10, see (at least) patented claim 16.
As to claim 11, see (at least) patented claim 16, and note that the “gear reduction system” of the patented claim implies at least a second gear element in the manner recited in the claim.
As to claim 12, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims.
As to claim 13, see (at least) patented claims 1-3.
As to claim 14, see (at least) patented claims 13-21, which imply a “handle” with the “hand held” recitations, as well as the “pistol grip” and “grip” recitations.
26. Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,914,141. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the aforementioned patent include each of the essentially recited elements of the instant application claims, as set forth below:
As to claim 1, see (at least) patented claims 1, 7 and 12.
As to claim 2, see (at least) patented claims 1 and 7.
As to claim 3, see (at least) patented claim 5.
As to claim 4, see (at least) patented claims 1 and 7.
As to claim 5, see (at least) patented claim 5.
As to claim 6, the recited details of the “bearing” were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and are thus obvious.
As to claim 7, see (at least) patented claim 5.
As to claim 8, see (at least) patented claim 5.
As to claim 9, the recited limitation is merely the result of forming in one piece an article which is formed in two pieces of the patented claims, which was obvious and well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, and as such involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 12, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims.
27. Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,060. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the aforementioned patent include each of the essentially recited elements of the instant application claims, as set forth below:
As to claim 1, see (at least) patented claims 1, 8 and 14.
As to claim 2, see (at least) patented claims 1, 8 and 14, and note that a “plurality of pistons” is within the scope of “at least one piston” recited in the patented claims.
As to claim 3, see (at least) patented claims 4 and 10.
As to claim 4, see (at least) patented claim 8.
As to claim 5, see (at least) patented claims 4 and 10.
As to claim 6, the recited details of the “bearing” were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and are thus obvious.
As to claim 7, see (at least) patented claims 4 and 10.
As to claim 8, see (at least) patented claims 4 and 10.
As to claim 9, the recited limitation is merely the result of forming in one piece an article which is formed in two pieces of the patented claims, which was obvious and well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, and as such involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 12, the limitation(s) thereof is/are implicit with the construction of the device set forth in the patented claims, particularly as being an annular “collar” element.
As to claim 13, see (at least) patented claims 2, 5, 8, 11 and 12.
As to claim 14, see (at least) patented claims 1, 8 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
28. 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.
29. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0037726. Please refer to paragraphs 1-16 of the instant Office action as to why the publication to Johnson et al. applies as “prior art” for claim 6.
As to claim 6, Johnson clearly shows all of the limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 5 (see Figs. 6A-7), and Johnson further shows and describes the bearing (98) as including an inner race (shown as “92B”, but clearly referred to as “98B” in at least paragraph [0034]), an outer race (98A) mounted to the connecting rod (100), and a plurality of rolling element bearings (98C) configured to rotate between the inner race and the outer race (see again, paragraph [0034]).
30. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van den Berg, Foreign Patent Publication No. EP 0312862 A2.
As to claim 1, van den Berg (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows a fluid dispensing device comprising: a housing body (2); a reciprocating piston fluid pump (see Fig. 2) disposed at least partially within the housing body, the reciprocating piston fluid pump comprising at least one piston (13) configured to reciprocate to pump a fluid; an electric drive (3) connected to the reciprocating piston fluid pump to actuate the at least one piston; a wobble assembly (see again, Fig. 2) connecting the electric drive and the at least one piston, the wobble assembly comprising: a shaft (11) configured to receive a rotational input from the electric drive and extending along a first axis; a connecting rod (10) mounted to the shaft and canted relative to the shaft such that rotation of the shaft causes rocking of the connecting rod, the connecting rod connected to the at least one piston to provide a driving axial input to the at least one piston (see again, Fig. 2).
As to claim 2, van den Berg shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the at least one piston includes a plurality of pistons (13).
As to claim 4, van den Berg shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the connecting rod interfacing with the at least one piston prevents rotation of the connecting rod about the first axis (“10” is disclosed as being “fixed”).
As to claim 5, van den Berg shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the wobble assembly further comprises: a bearing (no reference number, but clearly shown in Fig. 2) disposed between the shaft and the connecting rod, the bearing supporting the connecting rod on the shaft.
As to claim 10, van den Berg shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and further comprising: a first gear (22) mounted to the shaft, the first gear configured to provide the rotational input to the shaft.
As to claim 12, van den Berg shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the connecting rod (10) is formed as an annular ring about the shaft (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 13, van den Berg shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and further comprising: a spray tip (5, 6) disposed downstream of the reciprocating piston fluid pump, the spray tip configured to receive the fluid output by the reciprocating piston fluid pump (see Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 14, van den Berg shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the housing body includes an integrated handle (1).
31. Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanderjagt, USPN 4,614,481.
As to claim 1, Vanderjagt (see Figs. 1-3) shows a fluid dispensing device comprising: a housing body (13); a reciprocating piston fluid pump disposed at least partially within the housing body, the reciprocating piston fluid pump comprising at least one piston (69) configured to reciprocate to pump a fluid; an electric drive (47) connected to the reciprocating piston fluid pump to actuate the at least one piston; a wobble assembly (see Figs. 2 and 3) connecting the electric drive and the at least one piston, the wobble assembly comprising: a shaft (51) configured to receive a rotational input from the electric drive and extending along a first axis; a connecting rod (63) mounted to the shaft and canted relative to the shaft such that rotation of the shaft causes rocking of the connecting rod, the connecting rod connected to the at least one piston to provide a driving axial input to the at least one piston (see again, Fig. 3).
As to claim 2, Vanderjagt shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the at least one piston includes a plurality of pistons (69).
As to claim 4, Vanderjagt shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the connecting rod interfacing with the at least one piston prevents rotation of the connecting rod about the first axis (see column 3, lines 27-44).
As to claim 5, Vanderjagt shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the wobble assembly further comprises: a bearing (79) disposed between the shaft and the connecting rod, the bearing supporting the connecting rod on the shaft.
As to claim 6, Vanderjagt shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 5, and wherein the bearing includes an inner race (77), an outer race (81) mounted to the connecting rod, and a plurality of rolling element bearings (clearly shown in Fig. 3, between “77” and “81”) configured to rotate between the inner race and the outer race.
As to claim 7, Vanderjagt shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the wobble assembly further comprises: a land (71) disposed about the shaft, the land having a wobble seat oriented along a second axis (see Fig. 3), wherein the connecting rod is supported by the wobble seat (see again, Fig. 3).
As to claim 8, Vanderjagt shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 7, and wherein the wobble assembly further comprises: a bearing (79) disposed between the wobble seat and the connecting rod to support rotation of the wobble seat relative to the connecting rod (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 12, Vanderjagt shows the fluid dispensing device of claim 1, and wherein the connecting rod (63) is formed as an annular ring about the shaft (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. 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.
33. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderjagt.
As to claim 9, Vanderjagt shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 7; however, Vanderjagt is silent as to the land (71) and the shaft (51) as being integrally formed as a single component.
It should first be noted that the land of Vanderjagt is expressly disclosed as being “fixedly mounted” on the shaft (see column 3, lines 38-39), and thus if both elements were formed as a single component, the device of Vanderjagt would still clearly function as intended. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the land and the shaft of Vanderjagt as a single component, since such would have no negative effect on the intended function of the device, and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
34. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Berg, in view of Vanderjagt.
As to claim 6, van den Berg shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 5; however van den Berg is silent as to the specific constructional details of the bearing, whereby it would necessarily include an inner race, an outer race mounted to the connecting rod, and a plurality of rolling element bearings configured to rotate between the inner race and the outer race, although it is quite likely that such is actually anticipated by van den Berg, based on the depiction of the bearing element shown in Fig. 2.
Regardless, it should be noted that the details of the “bearing” recited in claim 6 were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Indeed, Vanderjagt shows a fluid pump wobble assembly (see Fig. 3) having a similar design, function and effect as that shown by van den Berg, and the corresponding bearing of Vanderjagt is shown and described as including an inner race (77), an outer race (81) mounted to the corresponding connecting rod (63), and a plurality of rolling element bearings (clearly shown in Fig. 3, between “77” and “81”) configured to rotate between the inner race and the outer race. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a bearing having the constructional details shown by Vanderjagt, for the non-descript bearing of the van den Berg device, since such constructional details for such a bearing were well known, and since it is abundantly clear that a bearing having such details would function at least equally well in the device of van den Berg.
35. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Berg, in view of Chamberlin, USPN 4,033,511.
As to claim 11, van den Berg shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 10; however van den Berg is silent as to the device further comprising a second gear connected to the first gear, with the second gear being configured to drive rotation of the first gear, although it is quite likely, if not implied, that a second gear (as recited in claim 11) is also included with the van den Berg device, since the first gear (22) is expressly disclosed by van den Berg as being a driven “reduction gear”, which is typically meshed with another driving gear element for speed reduction from the drive/motor.
Regardless, Chamberlin (see Fig. 1) shows a fluid dispensing device having a similar design as compared to van den Berg, with the Chamberlin device also including a reciprocating piston fluid pump (14) which is indirectly driven by a corresponding electric drive element (16) through a gear reduction arrangement having (at least) a first gear (42) mounted to a shaft (40), with the first gear being configured to provide rotational input to the shaft, and a second gear (44) connected to the first gear and configured to drive rotation of the first gear. Therefore, in the extremely unlikely event that the device of van den Berg lacks the second, driving gear, Chamberlin teaches inclusion thereof, in order to complete a typical, and well-known reduction gear arrangement.
36. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderjagt, in view of Ashton, USPN 2,405,006.
Vanderjagt shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1; however, Vanderjagt does not show or expressly describe the connecting rod as including a ball extending away from the first axis, with the ball being disposed in a socket of the at least one piston.
It should first be noted that it was old and well known in the art to use a ball and socket functional connection, as recited in claim 3, between a connecting rod and at least one piston of a reciprocating piston fluid pump which includes a wobble assembly, in order to functionally provide a driving axial input to the at least one piston. Indeed, Ashton (see Fig. 1) shows a reciprocating piston fluid pump which includes a wobble assembly, wherein the corresponding connecting rod (30) includes a ball (35b) extending away from the corresponding first axis, with the ball disposed in a socket (12a) of the corresponding at least one piston (12), thereby providing a driving axial input to the at least one piston. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a ball and socket functional connection arrangement, as taught by Ashton, for the corresponding functional connection between the connecting rod and at least one piston of the Vanderjagt device, since both arrangements essentially set forth an equivalent function of providing a driving axial input to at least one similar piston arrangement, and there would be a reasonable expectation of success if the functional connection taught by Ashton where to be employed in the device of Vanderjagt.
37. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderjagt, in view of Quarve, USPN 4,616,982.
As to claims 13 and 14, Vanderjagt shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, respectively; however, the device of Vanderjagt is not clearly or necessarily shown or described whereby a spray tip is disposed downstream of the reciprocating piston fluid pump, or that the housing body includes an integrated handle.
As to the “spray tip”, it is quite likely that such is actually anticipated by Vanderjagt, as per column 5, lines 19-22 and column 8, lines 47-51 of Vanderjagt. Regardless, it should be noted that the device of Vanderjagt is expressly disclosed as being suitable for pumping “viscous” fluids (see column 1, lines 18-23); and Quarve (see Figs. 1-4) shows a fluid dispensing device which is designed to pump and dispense viscous fluids, and which includes a corresponding housing body (18) having an integrated handle (clearly shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 4), and within which a reciprocating piston fluid pump (10) is at least partially housed, wherein the device further comprises a spray tip (as part of 14) disposed downstream of the reciprocating piston fluid pump, with the spray tip being configured to receive the fluid output by the reciprocating piston fluid pump, in order to spray the fluid, as necessary for a predetermined use. Therefore, since the device of Vanderjagt is clearly capable of use with a spray tip, and since the devices of Vanderjagt and Quarve are both designed for pumping and spraying viscous fluids, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fluid dispenser/sprayer having a spray tip, like that shown by Quarve, with the device shown by Vanderjagt, thus allowing a user to spray fluid as necessary for a predetermined use. Also, with the teaching of the “integrated handle” shown by Quarve, it would also be obvious to incorporate such with the housing body of Vanderjagt, thus allowing for better portability of the device.
38. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarve, in view of Vanderjagt.
As to claim 15, Quarve (see Figs. 1-4) shows a fluid dispensing system comprising: a spray gun (14) configured to emit a spray of a spray fluid, the spray gun including a spray valve (implicit with the “trigger” shown in Fig. 1) and a trigger (see again, Fig. 1), the trigger configured to cause the spray valve to shift to an open state (again, implicit with what is shown in Fig. 1); and a hose (16) extending between a corresponding fluid dispensing device (10) and the spray gun to convey spray fluid from the corresponding fluid dispensing device to the spray gun. However, the fluid dispensing device of Quarve is not shown or described so as to include all of the limitations recited in claim 1.
Vanderjagt (see Figs. 1-3) teaches a fluid dispensing device which anticipates all of the recited limitations of claim 1, as set forth above in paragraph 31 of the instant Office action; and the device of Vanderjagt is similarly disclosed as being designed for pumping and (ultimately) spraying a viscous fluid, much like that of Quarve. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a fluid dispensing device like that shown by Vanderjagt, for the similarly designed and similarly functioning fluid dispensing device of the Quarve system, since both fluid dispensing devices adequately provide pumping of viscous fluid for the ultimate purpose of spraying the fluid, and there would be a reasonable expectation of success if the fluid dispensing device of Vanderjagt replaced with fluid dispensing device of the Quarve fluid dispensing system.
Conclusion
39. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights