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 § 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11, line 2 recites “the discharge stroke”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which of the two discharge strokes recited in Claim 1 is being referred back to by this language. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as referring to either one of the two discharge strokes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 6-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Pulsation Free Hydraulically driven Piston Pump” to Vlot (attached herein; published February 2017; Vlot hereinafter).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
1196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
582
1124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
514
1148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1 & 7-8 shown immediately above, Vlot discloses:
1. A multi-piston pump (Fig. 8) comprising: a first pump (upper piston pump; Fig. 8) configured to execute a discharge stroke, a suction stroke, a compression stroke, a hold, and a changeover (all apparent in Fig. 7 and page 6); a second pump (lower piston pump; Fig. 8) independent from the first pump (“driving both pistons independently of each other”; page 6), the second pump being configured to execute a discharge stroke, a suction stroke, a compression stroke, a hold, and the changeover (all apparent in Fig. 7 and page 6); and a controller (“programmable logic controller PLC”; page 6) that coordinates operation of the first pump and the second pump so that: while the first pump is executing the discharge stroke, the second pump is executing the suction stroke, the compression stroke, and the hold (Fig. 7 and page 6), and the first pump and the second pump execute the changeover simultaneously (Fig. 7 and page 6); and while the second pump is executing the discharge stroke, the first pump is executing the suction stroke, the compression stroke, and the hold (Fig. 7 and page 6), and the first pump and the second pump execute the changeover simultaneously (Fig. 7 and page 6).
In regards to Claim 2, during the changeover, the first pump is executing the discharge stroke and the second pump is executing the discharge stroke (page 6; see also the top center region of Fig. 7, which shows an intersection at which both pistons are in the discharge stroke, with one piston ramping up in speed while the other ramps down in speed).
In regards to Claim 3, the first pump comprises a first linear position sensor (“a linear transducer system which is integrated on the hydraulic side of each cylinder”; page 6) configured to sense and send to the controller position information of the first pump (page 6), and the second pump comprises a second linear position sensor (“a linear transducer system which is integrated on the hydraulic side of each cylinder”; page 6) configured to sense and send to the controller position information of the second pump (page 6).
In regards to Claim 6, the multi-piston pump is configured to output a continuous volumetric output during the changeover between the first pump and the second pump (“constant discharge flow”; page 6; “flow is nearly constant”; page 8 ; see also Figs. 7 & 10).
In regards to Claim 7, during the discharge stroke of the first pump, a first discharge poppet valve fluidly connected to a first delivery cylinder of the first pump is open (page 2 and Fig. 1), and during the discharge stroke of the second pump, a second discharge poppet valve fluidly connected to a second delivery cylinder of the second pump is open (page 2 and Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 8, during the suction stroke of the first pump, a first suction poppet valve fluidly connected to the first delivery cylinder is open and the first discharge poppet valve is closed (page 2 and Fig. 1), and during the suction stroke of the second pump, a second suction poppet valve fluidly connected to the second delivery cylinder is open and the second discharge poppet valve is closed (page 2 and Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 9, during the changeover between the first pump and the second pump, the first discharge poppet valve is open and the second discharge poppet valve is open (this is clearly implied by Vlot’s statement “When the pressure levels in both cylinders are equal, cylinder #2 will start its discharge stroke and take over from cylinder #1”; page 6; see also the top center region of Fig. 7, which shows an intersection at which both pistons are in the discharge stroke, with one piston ramping up in speed while the other ramps down in speed).
In regards to Claim 10, the first pump and the second pump are hydraulic pumps (page 1 and Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 12, during the compression stroke of the first pump, the first discharge poppet valve is closed and the first suction poppet valve is closed (this is implicit to allowing compression to occur; see also “Pre-compression in ‘waiting’ cylinder” in Fig. 7, and page 6), and during the compression stroke of the second pump, the second discharge poppet valve is closed and the second suction poppet valve is closed (this is implicit to allowing compression to occur; see also “Pre-compression in ‘waiting’ cylinder” in Fig. 7, and page 6).
In regards to Claim 13, during the compression stroke of the first pump, the pressure in the first delivery cylinder increases until the pressure in the first delivery cylinder is just below a pressure in the second delivery cylinder (Fig. 7 and page 6 make clear that such a pressure relationship occurs, at least momentarily; “in order to bring the pressure up to level of cylinder #1” requires the pre-compression pressure to momentarily reach a level that is “just below a pressure” in the other cylinder, as claimed), and during the compression stroke of the second pump, the pressure in the second delivery cylinder increases until the pressure in the second delivery cylinder is just below a pressure in the first delivery cylinder (Fig. 7 and page 6 make clear that such a pressure relationship occurs, at least momentarily; “in order to bring the pressure up to level of cylinder #1” requires the pre-compression pressure to momentarily reach a level that is “just below a pressure” in the other cylinder, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 14, when the pressure in the first delivery cylinder is just below a pressure in the second delivery cylinder, the pressure in the first delivery cylinder is just below the opening pressure of the first discharge poppet valve (Fig. 7 and page 6 make clear that such a pressure relationship occurs; “When the pressure levels in both cylinders are equal, cylinder #2 will start its discharge stroke and take over from cylinder #1” implies that a pre-compression pressure just below the pressure within the other cylinder (i.e. just before “equal” pressure) is a pressure just before opening of the discharge poppet valve (“start its discharge stroke”), as claimed), and when the pressure in the second delivery cylinder is just below the pressure in the first delivery cylinder, the pressure in the second delivery cylinder is just below the opening pressure of the second discharge poppet valve (Fig. 7 and page 6 make clear that such a pressure relationship occurs; “When the pressure levels in both cylinders are equal, cylinder #2 will start its discharge stroke and take over from cylinder #1” implies that a pre-compression pressure just below the pressure within the other cylinder (i.e. just before “equal” pressure) is a pressure just before opening of the discharge poppet valve (“start its discharge stroke”), as claimed).
In regards to Claim 15, during the hold of the first pump (circled region in Fig. 7 shows a hold for pump 2; the same can be seen at the right of Fig. 7 for pump 1), the pressure in the first delivery cylinder is just below a pressure in the second delivery cylinder (“pre-compression of the waiting cylinder #2, in order to bring the pressure up to level of cylinder #1. When the pressure levels in both cylinders are equal, cylinder #2 will start its discharge stroke and take over from cylinder #1” at page 6 clearly implies a ramping up of fluid pressure in one cylinder during pre-compression, which implicitly requires the pre-compressing pump to momentarily produce a pressure just below the pressure in the other pump, as claimed) and the second delivery cylinder is executing the discharge stroke (Fig. 7 and page 6), and during the hold of the second pump (circled region in Fig. 7 shows a hold for pump 2; the same can be seen at the right of Fig. 7 for pump 1), the pressure in the second delivery cylinder is just below a pressure in the first delivery cylinder (“pre-compression of the waiting cylinder #2, in order to bring the pressure up to level of cylinder #1. When the pressure levels in both cylinders are equal, cylinder #2 will start its discharge stroke and take over from cylinder #1” at page 6 clearly implies a ramping up of fluid pressure in one cylinder during pre-compression, which implicitly requires the pre-compressing pump to momentarily produce a pressure just below the pressure in the other pump, as claimed) and the first delivery cylinder is executing the discharge stroke (Fig. 7 and page 6).
In regards to Claim 16, the multi-piston pump has a discharge pipe that is connected to the first delivery cylinder and the second delivery cylinder (shown best in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 17, the first suction poppet valve is an intake control valve for the first delivery cylinder, the first discharge poppet valve is an exhaust control valve for the first delivery cylinder, the second suction poppet valve is an intake control valve for the second delivery cylinder, and the second discharge poppet valve is an exhaust control valve for the second delivery cylinder (Fig. 1; pages 2 & 6-7).
In regards to Claim 18, the first pump comprises a first ram within the first delivery cylinder and the second pump comprises a second ram within the second delivery cylinder (both apparent in Fig. 8).
In regards to Claim 19, during the changeover from the first pump to the second pump, the first ram ramps down speed while the second ram ramps up speed, the pressure in the first delivery cylinder decreasing and the pressure in the second delivery cylinder increasing, and during the changeover from the second pump to the first pump, the second ram ramps down speed while the first ram ramps up speed, the pressure in the second delivery cylinder decreasing and the pressure in the first delivery cylinder increasing (detailed in pages 6-7 and shown in Fig. 7; “the suction stroke is performed at a higher speed than the discharge stroke”).
In regards to Claim 20, a rate of rearward movement of the first ram is greater than a rate of forward movement of the second ram when the first pump is executing the suction stroke, and a rate of rearward movement of the second ram is faster than a rate of forward movement of the first ram when the second pump is executing the suction stroke (detailed in pages 6-7 and shown in Fig. 7; “the suction stroke is performed at a higher speed than the discharge stroke”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlot (applied above) in view of US 2020/0072201 to Marica.
In regards to Claims 4-5, Vlot discloses the invention of Claim 3, but does not further disclose that the first pump comprises a first pressure sensor configured to sense and send to the controller pressure information of the first pump, and the second pump comprises a second pressure sensor configured to sense and send to the controller pressure information of the second pump, wherein the controller coordinates operation of the first pump and the second pump based upon position information of the first pump, position information of the second pump, pressure information of the first pump, and pressure information of the second pump, as claimed in Claims 4-5.
However, Marica discloses another multi-piston pump (Fig. 1) for wellbore operations (paras. 3-4) and in which first and second piston pumps (60; Fig. 1) pump fluid from a suction manifold (12) to a discharge manifold (14) and controlled by an electronic controller (50) (Fig. 1) such that “pressurized drilling fluid is continuously fed to the drill string at a substantially constant rate” (para. 4). Marica further discloses that the first pump comprises a first pressure sensor (52) configured to sense and send to the controller pressure information of the first pump (para. 25), and the second pump comprises a second pressure sensor (52) configured to sense and send to the controller pressure information of the second pump, as claimed (para. 25). Marica further discloses the use of linear position sensors (54) communicating with the controller (50), similar to Vlot. Marica makes clear that by monitoring both position and pressure of each pump, optimized control of pump operations is obtained (para. 25). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a multi-piston pump that ensures optimizes pump operations through multiple sensed variables (i.e. position and pressure), it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Marica in combination with those seen in Vlot in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vlot’s piston pumps with respective pressure sensors (52) connected to Vlot’s controller (as taught in Marica) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being pump control system that ensures optimal pump operation that considers not only pump position but also pump pressure.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlot (applied above) in view of CN 106014903 to Gong (attached herein with machine translation).
In regards to Claim 11, Vlot discloses the multi-piston pump of claim 10, but does not further disclose that hydraulic fluid is routed to a piston to tank orifice after completion of the discharge stroke, as claimed.
However, Gong discloses yet another hydraulically driven multi-piston pump (Fig. 1) for pumping slurry, concrete, etc. (paras. 2-4) and in which first and second piston pumps (11/12/13 & 21/22/23; Fig. 1) pump fluid from an intake to an outlet via respective poppet valves (72, 73) (paras. 64-109). Gong further discloses that hydraulic fluid is routed to a piston to tank orifice (3, 4, which both contain orifices 6) after completion of the discharge strokes (para. 65), thereby allowing for quick return of hydraulic fluid to the tank as needed while “enabling a smooth transition in pumping reversal and keeping the flow rate and pressure of the pumped material relatively stable” (para. 39). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a multi-piston pump that can provide quick return of the pistons as needed in order to maintain stable output flow/pressure, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Gong in combination with those seen in Vlot in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gong’s oil return lines with respective orifices (6) (as taught in Gong) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being pump control system that can provide for quick return of the pump pistons, and thus, stable output flow/pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights