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 Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a first” in line 4 of each claim should read “the first”. 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 2-4 and 8 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 reference to claims 2-4 and 8, each claim recites “further comprising ball guides” in line 1 of each claim. It is unclear if these recitations are referring to the guides recited in line 12 of claims 1 and 7 or other additional guides. For purposes of examination the recitations will be interpreted as referring to the guides of claims 1 and 7.
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) 1-4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0334957 A1 to Simmons et al. (Simmons).
In reference to claims 1 and 7, Simmons discloses a double diaphragm pump having an intake (136; Fig. 1) and an outlet (138) each in communication with first and second chambers (126, 128), and balls (162) located proximate to suction and delivery seats (160) of each of the first and second chambers, wherein said pump selectively and alternatingly directs fluid into one of a first and second chambers with first and second air diaphragms (120, 122; par. 0028) with the ball displaced from its suction seat and the other of the first and second chambers having the ball at its suction seat preventing flow into the other of the first and second chambers while filling the one of the first and second chambers with the first air diaphragm pulling a suction on the one of the first and second chambers, while the second air diaphragm expels fluid from the other of the first and second chambers with the ball displaced from its delivery seat, and the ball at the delivery seat of the one of the first and second chambers prevents flow into the one of first and second chamber (pars. 0038, 0045), the improvement comprising: ball guides (150) proximate to the suction seats and delivery seats, said ball guides limiting the movement of the balls on and off the suction seats to substantially linear travel on and off the suction seats and delivery seats (see Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 2, Simmons discloses the improvement of claim 1 further comprising ball guides having interior curved surfaces substantially corresponding to a diameter of the balls thereby limiting travel to substantially linearly on and off the suction seats (see Figs. 1 and 2).
In reference to claim 3, Simmons discloses the improvement of claim 2 further comprising ball guides proximate to the delivery seats, said ball guides limiting the movement of the balls on and off the delivery seats to substantially linear travel on and off the delivery seats (see Figs. 1 and 2).
In reference to claim 4, Simmons discloses the improvement of claim 3 further comprising ball guides having interior curved surfaces substantially corresponding to a diameter of the balls thereby limiting travel to substantially linearly on and off the delivery seats (see Figs. 1 and 2).
In reference to claim 8, Simmons discloses the improvement of claim 7 further comprising ball guides having interior curved surfaces substantially corresponding to a diameter of the balls thereby limiting travel to substantially linearly on and off the delivery seats (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0249621 A1 to Bethel (Bethel).
In reference to claim 11, Bethel discloses a double diaphragm pump having an intake (48; Fig. 2) and an outlet (60) each in communication with first and second chambers, and balls located proximate to suction and delivery seats (66; Figs. 3-5) of each of the first and second chambers (20, 22; Fig. 1), wherein said pump selectively and alternatingly directs fluid into one of a first and second chambers with first and second air diaphragms (24, 26) with the ball displaced from its suction seat and the other of the first and second chambers having the ball at its suction seat preventing flow into the other of the first and second chambers while filling the one of the first and second chambers with the first air diaphragm pulling a suction on the one of the first and second chambers, while the second air diaphragm expels fluid from the other of the first and second chambers with the ball displaced from its delivery seat, and the ball at the delivery seat of the one of the first and second chambers prevents flow into the one of first and second chamber (see Fig. 1), the improvement comprising: a support (12) and an intake manifold (34, 42, 46, 52, 54), and wherein the intake is located in the intake manifold (see Fig. 2), said manifold having the suction seats with its respective ball alternatingly sealing thereon, and the support elevating the manifold to a position above a lower surface of the support permitting the removal of the manifold without requiring removal of the pump from its installed location (see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5, 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Bethel.
In reference to claims 5 and 9, Simmons discloses the improvement of claims 1 and 7, further comprising a manifold (see Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly disclose a support. However, Bethel discloses a similar pump with first and second chambers (see Fig. 1), further comprising a support (12) and an intake manifold (34, 42, 46, 52, 54; Fig. 2), and wherein the intake is located in the intake manifold, said manifold having the suction seats (60; Figs. 3-5) with its respective ball alternatingly sealing thereon, and the support elevating the manifold to a position above a lower surface of the support permitting the removal of the manifold without requiring removal of the pump from its installed location (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the known support and separable manifold disclosed by Bethel for the known manifold of Simmons. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see MPEP 2141).
In reference to claims 6 and 10, the modified Simmons teaches the improvement of claims 5 and 9, wherein the support further comprises feet extending downwardly from the pump (see Bethel, Fig. 1).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2023/0265845 A1, 2021/0108630 A1, 2003/0024571 A1, 6,168,394 B1 and 6,142,749 A each appear to also anticipate at least claims 1 and 7 and may be relied upon in a subsequent Office action.
US 2024/0392770 A1 and 2022/0372969 A1 each appear to also anticipate at least claim 11 and may be relied upon in a subsequent Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MATTHIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5168. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am - 6pm Pacific Time.
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 III 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.
/JONATHAN R MATTHIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
03 December 2025