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 .
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizukami et al. (20200049168) hereinafter Mizukami.
Regarding claim 1, Mizukami discloses an accumulator (Title, Abstract, and Figure 7: 201) comprising:
an exterior body (paragraph [0075]: “pressure vessel 210” and Figure 7: 210) including a bottom (paragraph [0074]: “second section 230” and Figure 7: 230), a shell (paragraph [0076]: “external cylinder portion 221” and Figure 7: 221) and a port (paragraph [0078] and Figure 7: 223);
and a bellows (paragraph [0079] and Figure 7: 241) provided inside the exterior body and having an S-shape (Figure 8 shows below 241 having S-shape) being capable of expansion and contraction (paragraph [0085]: “bellows 241 (metal bellows) configured to expand and contract along the axial direction”), wherein in a case where the bellows has expanded maximally in the accumulator, the bellows has expanded from a free state where no load other than gravitational force is being applied to the bellows (paragraph [0086 - 0087] explains the bellows expanding and contracting in response to changing volume ratios of gas in the gas chamber 218 and volume ratio of liquid in the liquid chamber 216, implying the bellows to be initially at a free state where no external forces other than bellows own weight or gravitational force is present).
PNG
media_image1.png
349
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 8
Regarding claim 4, Mizukami discloses an accumulator according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mizukami further discloses bellows having cylindrical shape (paragraph [0076] mentioned about external wall 221 of accumulator being cylindrical shaped; figure 7 shows bellows 241 being attached to 221; these imply bellows 241 is cylindrical) extending in a pleated shape (Annotated figure 8) and includes repetitions of:
an outer peripheral turn (Annotated figure 8: “outer peripheral turn”) provided near an outer periphery;
an inner peripheral turn (Annotated figure 8: “outer peripheral turn”) provided near an inner periphery;
and plural curved portions (Annotated figure 8: first, second and third curved portions) provided between the outer peripheral and inner peripheral turns, adjacent ones of the plural curved portions having curved forms inverse to each other (Annotated figure 8 demonstrates all these features).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 (https://studylib.net/doc/27611320/bs-en-14917-2021?utm_campaign=captcha_passed&p=92&ct=0f33910988b1e8b2%3Aa5b48b712dd349890205d1c94db03f) and Barraza-Contreras (https://doi.org/10.339/app10186384).
Regarding claim 2, Mizukami discloses an accumulator according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mizukami does not disclose an expansion rate of the bellows in an expansion direction is set to be equal to or less than a permissible expansion rate calculated based on Weibull analysis.
BS EN 14917:2021 teaches axial displacement, which is related to expansion rate, being a key parameter for calculating fatigue life while designing bellows (section 6.2.6.3, 6.2.7.1, 6.2.7.2 and Figure 20).
Barraza-Contreras teaches using Weibull analysis for prediction of fatigue life of mechanical elements (Title, abstract, Section 4 demonstrates calculation of fatigue life for a flat spring undergoing cyclic variable stress that causes tensile deflection) going through stress cycles.
Permissible expansion rate of instant invention is tied to fatigue life of the bellows and operating the bellows in an expansion rate zone to avoid fatigue failure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras to determine a permissible expansion rate of the bellows using Weibull analysis so that the bellows can operate below or at that expansion rate to avoid fatigue failure.
Alternatively, the quantities expansion rate, permissible expansion rate and determination of permissible expansion rate are tied to fatigue life prediction of the bellows and determining operating range for bellows to avoid fatigue failure. MPEP 2114(II) states that “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”. Claims to the instant invention are directed towards apparatus, not to the manner of operating the apparatus. Limitations introduced in claim 2 is directed to manner of operation of the apparatus. Hence the limitation stated in claim 2 does not add patentable merit to the claimed apparatus invention.
Regarding claim 3, Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras discloses an accumulator according to claim 2 as set forth above.
Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras does not disclose the permissible expansion rate being 9.3%.
Limitation introduced in claim 3 is tied to operating range of for bellows extension to avoid fatigue failure. Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras discloses an accumulator where one of the key parameters of bellows design is expansion rate and where Weibull analysis is used for statistically determining a safe range of bellows expansion rate for fatigue-failure-free operation. Such determination of safe operating range of expansion rate is considered optimization through routine experimentation in the art. Optimization through routine experimentation is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II) A). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform routine experimentation for determining permissible expansion rates for bellows, which for a specific application can be 9.3% or below as mentioned in the claim of the current invention.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Mizukami such that the permissible expansion rate is 9.3%, since it has been held that a change in size/shape of a component involves only routine skill in the art and/or having the permissible expansion rate be 9.3% is seen to be an obvious matter of design choice, especially as the applicant’s specification does not appear to place a criticality on the specific 9.3%. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have the expansion rate of the bellows be of a particular amount desired by a user for a particular application.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizukami in view of Yamamoto et al. (20180245606) hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 5, Mizukami discloses an accumulator according to claim 1 as set forth above. While Mizukami discloses bellows being metallic (paragraph [0085]: “the bellows mechanism 240 includes a bellows 241 (metal bellows)”), Mizukami does not disclose bellows made of stainless steel.
Yamamoto teaches bellows (Figure 7: 4a) being made of metallic material such as stainless steel (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use steel as taught by Yamamoto to construct the metallic bellows of Mizukami. Such a modification would result in a more durable and rust-free bellows.
Regarding claim 8, Mizukami discloses an accumulator according to claim 4 as set forth above. While Mizukami discloses bellows being metallic (paragraph [0085]: “the bellows mechanism 240 includes a bellows 241 (metal bellows)”), Mizukami does not disclose bellows made of stainless steel.
Yamamoto teaches bellows (Figure 7: 4a) being made of metallic material such as stainless steel (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use steel as taught by Yamamoto to construct the metallic bellows of Mizukami. Such a modification would result in a more durable and rust-free bellows.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 6, Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras discloses an accumulator according to claim 2 as set forth above. While Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras discloses bellows being metallic (Mizukami paragraph [0085]: “the bellows mechanism 240 includes a bellows 241 (metal bellows)”), Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras does not disclose bellows made of stainless steel.
Yamamoto teaches bellows (Figure 7: 4a) being made of metallic material such as stainless steel (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use steel as taught by Yamamoto to construct the metallic bellows of Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras. Such a modification would result in a more durable and rust-free bellows.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 7, Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras discloses an accumulator according to claim 3 as set forth above. While Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras discloses bellows being metallic (Mizukami paragraph [0085]: “the bellows mechanism 240 includes a bellows 241 (metal bellows)”), Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras does not disclose bellows made of stainless steel.
Yamamoto teaches bellows (Figure 7: 4a) being made of metallic material such as stainless steel (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use steel as taught by Yamamoto to construct the metallic bellows of Mizukami in view of BS EN 14917:2021 and Barraza-Contreras. Such a modification would result in a more durable and rust-free bellows.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0113. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Wed 9:00am-7:00pm and Thurs 8:30am-2:30pm EST.
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 supervisors, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/FAISAL AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights