DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/30/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-2 and 9-10 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph [0011], “to deliver a priming fluid into the cylinder to the piston assembly.” should be changed to -- to deliver a priming fluid into the cylinder through the piston assembly. --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 12/30/2025, the objection to claims 1-10 set forth in the Office Action of 10/01/2025, is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 12/30/2025, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, set forth in the Office Action of 10/01/2025, is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher et al. (hereinafter “Fisher”) (Patent No.: US 7,517,306 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Fisher discloses a manually operated pump (hip pump assembly, as stated in Abstract) comprising:
a base (base B of the hip pump that can be folded up against the pump, as depicted immediately below);
a molded valve box of unitary construction (valve box assembly VB which is disposed adjacent to a base B, as presented in annotated Figure 11) pivotally mounted to a base (the valve box assembly VB is undoubtedly being pivotably mounted to the base B that can be folded up against the pump, as depicted immediately below; further, as stated in column 8 lines 41-44, the base is pivotably connected to the inlet and outlet pipes of the valve box assembly to form a pivot axle between the cylinder assembly and the base), the valve box (valve box assembly VB) comprising:
an inlet chamber, and an outlet chamber (as discussed in column 4 lines 25-32 & column 8 lines 9-15, the valve box assembly VB comprising a valve chamber having an inlet side and an outlet side, wherein the inlet side would be necessarily forming an inlet chamber while the outlet side forming an outlet chamber), and a divider disposed therebetween (as best seen in annotated Figure 42, the valve chamber is undoubtedly including a partition/structure/ separating portion/separator/flat object or divider portion DP that is being used to separate parts of the chamber while being located within the valve chamber); and
a valve plate comprising an inlet valve (inlet side of the valve plate, see column 4 lines 28-33) in flow communication with the inlet chamber and an outlet valve (outlet valve that has to open towards the outlet side, as discussed in column 4 lines 12-28) side in flow communication with the outlet chamber;
a cylinder (hip pump’s cylinder PC or removable cylinder which allows access to the valve box, as discussed in column 6 lines 9-15 and shown in annotated Figure 1, and further, as stated in column 8 lines 25-29, the removable cylinder coupled at one end to the valve box assembly) removably mounted to the valve box (hip pump’s cylinder PC or removable cylinder is surely being removably mounted to the valve box assembly VB); and
a piston assembly at least partially disposed within the cylinder (as stated in column 8 lines 32-40, this piston or piston assembly disposed within the cylinder assembly), the piston assembly comprising:
a pump shaft (pump shaft PS, as best seen in annotated Figures 41& 48) comprising a distal end (the pump shaft PS is evidently comprising a distal end DE proximate the valve box VB, as depicted in annotated Figure 48) proximate the valve box (valve box VB) and a proximal end (proximal end PE, as seen in annotated Figures 41 & 48), the pump shaft (pump shaft PS) comprising:
a handle (handle PH, as seen immediately below) at the proximal end (as illustrated in annotated Figures 1 &41).
Particularly, Fisher demonstrates as how the pumping apparatus comprising the piston assembly and the cylinder pumping mechanism, wherein, as stated in column 1 lines 55-60, in use, the piston is driven in and out of the cylinder by a handle 2 which is pushed and pulled by the operator. The piston is being a low-friction-piston, such as one made with PVC or leather piston cups, or any other type of low friction piston (see column 1 lines 66-67 & column 2 lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
901
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
380
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, in column 6 lines 36-53, Fisher especially notes that the piston has two innovative features--opposed piston seals (piston cups) and an automatically closing leak valve that is simple and low cost to manufacture.
As shown in annotated Figure 36, Fisher clearly exhibits as how the piston seals or piston cups are being opposed--the pressure seal is mounted above the suction seal. When the piston is pushed downwards, the water easily passes the lower suction seal as the skirt of the seal is pushed inwards.
Likewise, as best seen in annotated Figure 48 below, Fisher evidently demonstrates that a pump shaft PS comprising a distal end DE, which is necessarily being disposed proximate the valve box VB, and a proximal end PE to which the handle 2 is fixed.
PNG
media_image4.png
509
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Still further, in column 7 lines 40-52, Fisher also teaches: The valves, piston seals, cylinder gasket and cylinder clip can be molded in soft PVC. When all the molded parts and subassemblies are prepared, and painted, the valves are then press fitted by hand into the valve box. The cylinder subassembly is then screwed onto the valve box, with the interposition of the soft PVC gasket. The cylinder clip is slid onto the cylinder body. The piston seals are stretched into the grooves between the piston disks, and the cylinder cap and bearing is clipped onto the piston stem. The piston is then slid into the cylinder and the cylinder cap clipped into place.
In fact, Fisher’s piston assembly is certainly designed such that the pump shaft PS comprising: a handle at the proximal end PE and/or a molded piston of unitary construction at the distal end and/or a pair of opposing piston cups mounted to the piston.
PNG
media_image5.png
354
615
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
307
660
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, in column 4 lines 25-55, Fisher discloses that: The valve attaches to the inlet side of the valve plate in the simple manner described in the first section, using molded sockets and pins. Sections of the motion of the outlet valve are shown in FIGS. 16 & 17. A photograph of the behavior of a prototype of the valve is shown in FIG. 18. The present configuration of the replaceable plastic part of the outlet valve is shown in FIGS. 19-23. The valve operates by having a flexible stem linking the block, (which incorporates the attachment sockets), to the sealing flap on the other side of the valve plate. The flow of water around the side of the valve means that the total flow area is greater than the area of the hole in the valve plate resulting in an efficient valve design, even with a valve flap opening that is usually less than 45 degrees.
Clearly, as best seen in annotated Figure 12 above, Fisher explicitly exhibits as how the valve plate VP comprising an inlet valve that is being in flow communication with the inlet chamber while an outlet valve being in flow communication with the outlet chamber, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Fisher, in column 4 lines 11-25, then goes on to describe how: it is common that the valve box is opened by unscrewing a cover that is held in place by a number of bolts and sealed with a gasket. (See FIG. 14). This is the case because an outlet valve has to open towards the outlet side of the pump. This is schematically illustrated in FIG. 15. However, using a bolt-on outlet chamber in a pump has disadvantages: 1) Bolts can rust and are an additional expense; 2) The gasket will require regular maintenance; 3) The gasket may leak reducing efficiency which is critical for human-powered pumps; 4) More complex manufacturing methods are needed in order to render the mating surfaces of the valve box flat enough to seal.
Further, in column 4 lines 25-35, Fisher states that: This invention avoids these problems via a novel design of the outlet valve which attaches on the inlet side of the valve chamber, but acts on the outlet side. The design also improves on Valve durability and has minimal maintenance needs. The valve attaches to the inlet side of the valve plate in the simple manner described in the first section, using molded sockets and pins. Sections of the motion of the outlet valve are shown in FIGS. 16 & 17. A photograph of the behavior of a prototype of the valve is shown in FIG. 18.
Still further, in column 4 lines 44-53, Fisher notes that: The valve needs to be stiff enough to resist the necessary pressure and yet soft enough to be easily inserted through the hole in the outlet valve plate. The valves of the invention are designed to be oval shaped which meets this design criterion. The valve can be easily inserted through the outlet valve plate as in FIG. 25. By using this method, the entire valve box can be made compact and fully welded, minimizing the volume, minimizing the chance of leaks, and significantly lowering costs.
Furthermore, in column 7 lines 15-27, Fisher also discloses: The valve body contains pressed/punched steel parts which lower manufacturing time and improve accuracy and alignment in assembly. The parts of the valve body consist of the punched and folded pressure plate, the punched Suction plate, and the punched top plate. These parts have holes for the rivets as well as for the passage of water, so that the alignment to the molded PVC valves is simplified. This ensures the critical parts of the valve box are accurate in size and the potential for fabrication error is greatly reduced. As in the case of the footplate, the valve body is welded together in a fixture to improve accuracy and decrease welding time.
More specifically, Fisher further performs as how: a piston disposed within the cylinder assembly, the piston comprising: a pressure seal and a suction seal disposed at a lower end of the piston, the pressure seal being spaced apart and mounted above the suction seal, and a leak valve comprising an opening in the pressure seal adapted to enable fluid flow above the suction seal on a suction stroke, wherein the cylinder cap surrounds the piston, and the base is pivotably connected to the inlet and outlet pipes of the valve box assembly to form a pivot axle between the cylinder assembly and the base (see column 8 lines 33-44) and/or how the removable cylinder is coupled to the valve assembly via a threaded union (see column 8 lines 45-54).
Likewise, with respect to the particular method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
Thus, the Examiner must assert that Fisher’s analysis directly and/or indirectly describes the methodology of assembling a manually operated pump.
In a broad sense, Fisher certainly performs method steps of pivotally mounting a molded valve box of unitary construction to a base, wherein the valve box includes a valve plate as a part of the unitary construction and/ inserting an inlet valve and an outlet valve into the valve plate and/or mounting a molded piston of unitary construction to a distal end of a pump shaft and/or mounting a pair of opposing piston cups to the molded piston and/or disposing a cylinder about at least a portion of the pump shaft and/or removably mounting the cylinder to the valve box and/or installing a handle at a proximal end of the pump shaft, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Fisher substantially discloses the method of assembling, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in column 5 lines 32-42, Fisher explicitly teaches that “the cylinder subassembly comprises four components: a removable cylinder, a threaded union for attaching the cylinder to the valve box, a splash cap to prevent fluid that leaks around the piston from splashing the operator, and a cylinder cap with a replaceable bush to guide the piston into the cylinder.”
PNG
media_image7.png
478
606
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Then, Fisher, in column 6 lines 10-15, also states that: To allow access to the valve box, or to replace the cylinder due to wear, the cylinder attaches by means of a threaded union made from tough plastic. The union screws onto a steel nipple which is integral with the valve body.
In fact, one of ordinary skill in the art would surely recognize that the hip pump’s cylinder PC or removable cylinder is being removably mounted to the valve box VB with a threaded interface and/or the removably mounting the cylinder to the valve box is necessarily comprising threading the cylinder onto the valve box with a threaded interface, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Fisher substantially discloses the method of assembling, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in column 5 lines 32-42, Fisher explicitly teaches as how “the cylinder subassembly comprises four components: a removable cylinder, a threaded union for attaching the cylinder to the valve box, a splash cap to prevent fluid that leaks around the piston from splashing the operator, and a cylinder cap with a replaceable bush to guide the piston into the cylinder”.
Further, in column 5 lines 44-54, Fisher especially states: A flexible plastic cylinder cap fits tightly inside the top of the cylinder and around the stem of the piston so that it guides the piston as the piston goes in and out of the cylinder. The plastic could be one of a variety of flexible plastics, such as PVC. A split in the cap allows the cap to be opened up and closed around the piston stem. (FIG. 28) The lugged cross section of the cap and the flexibility of the material allow the cap to be a firm press fit into the cylinder. The cap, designed with 3 slots, allows fluid to enter into the top of the cylinder for priming the pump without removing the cap.
Likewise, in column 6 lines 4-8, Fisher also specifies: When the cylinder cap is in place, a splash cap (FIG. 31) is slid over the top of the cylinder and the cylinder cap as in FIG. 32. The splash cap is one piece molded plastic.
In fact, the manually operated pump, as disclosed by Fisher, is certainly designed such that a stopper cap, which is defined by the splash cap, is being disposed at a proximal end of the cylinder or hip pump’s cylinder PC or removable cylinder which allows access to the valve box and being adapted to prevent the pump shaft from being fully pulled out of the cylinder.
In other words, the method of assembling is clearly comprising: installing a stopper cap at a proximal end of the cylinder and/or the stopper cap being adapted to prevent the pump shaft from being fully pulled out of the cylinder, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Fisher substantially discloses the method, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in column 5 lines 32-42, Fisher explicitly teaches that “the cylinder subassembly comprises four components: a removable cylinder, a threaded union for attaching the cylinder to the valve box, a splash cap to prevent fluid that leaks around the piston from splashing the operator, and a cylinder cap with a replaceable bush to guide the piston into the cylinder.”
Then, Fisher, in column 6 lines 10-15, also states that: To allow access to the valve box, or to replace the cylinder due to wear, the cylinder attaches by means of a threaded union made from tough plastic. The union screws onto a steel nipple which is integral with the valve body.
PNG
media_image1.png
413
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
478
606
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In fact, with reference to annotated Figures 1& 26, one of ordinary skill in the art would surely recognize that the hip pump’s cylinder PC or removable cylinder is being removably mounted to the valve box VB with a threaded interface and/or method step of removably mounting the cylinder to the valve box further comprising attaching the cylinder PC to a collar having threads that engage corresponding threads on the valve box, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Fisher substantially discloses the method of assembling the manually operated pump, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in column 4 lines 25-34, Fisher expressly states that “the valve attaches to the inlet side of the valve plate in the simple manner described in the first section, using molded sockets and pins.”
PNG
media_image8.png
287
666
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As best seen in annotated Figure 12, Fisher evidently demonstrates as how the valve plate with flexible valves being formed as a single piece or unitary construction.
In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would surely recognize that the inlet valve and the outlet valve are formed in a single part of unitary construction.
Consequently, the Examiner must assert that Fisher’s method of assembling does, in fact, provide a method step of inserting the inlet valve and the outlet valve into respective shaped apertures while the respective shaped apertures being adapted to accept a part of the inlet valve and a part of the outlet valve, wherein the part of the inlet valve and the part of the outlet valve have a shape complementary to the respective shaped apertures, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Rausenberger (Patent No.: US 2,616,583).
Regarding claims 4-6, Fisher substantially discloses the method, as claimed and detailed above.
However, although Fisher discloses the majority of Appellant's claimed elements, he is still silent as to the specifics of a filler cap.
Nonetheless, the use of a filler cap in a pumping system is well-known in the art, as taught by Rausenberger. Rausenberger successfully demonstrates an example of the filler cap assembly for the inlet of a container to retain the contents thereof under positive pressure in which the cover of the assembly is separate from the closure portion and serves as a handle for effecting movement of the closure into and out of sealing position (see column 1 lines 5-15). Further, Rausenberger more clearly explains: It is also an object of the invention to provide a filler cap assembly, wherein the cover serves as an operating handle for releasing and sealing the closure and is adapted to be retracted into substantially flush relation with the surrounding surface of the container for minimum wind resistance and is fitted with a spring arranged to raise the cover to an operating position, and wherein provision is made for releasably locking the cover in its retracted position by a simple rotational movement of a relatively few degrees (see column 1 lines 41-52).
In this disclosure, Rausenberger teaches as how: A filler cap assembly for the inlet of a container to retain positive pressure on the contents thereof, comprising an adapter for said container including an annular rim defining an inlet, opening, a closure adapted to seat on said rim, a clamp adapted to engage the underside of said rim, a stud including a portion of larger diameter positioned above said closure and a portion of reduced diameter extending through said closure and supporting said clamp thereon (see column 8 lines 45-60).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the filler cap assembly as taught by Rausenberger to the method of Fisher, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of filler caps in pumping systems, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the fluid flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the method of assembling the manually operated pump would be further comprising installing a filler cap that would be further forming an inlet at a proximal end of the pump shaft and/or the filler cap would be further adapted to further deliver a priming fluid into the cylinder and/or introducing the priming fluid through the filler cap that would be further located at a top of the cylinder and/or introducing the priming fluid further be further comprising leaving the pump shaft in the cylinder, as instantly claimed.
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Nasr et al. (hereinafter “Nasr”) (Pub. No.: US 2017/0197776 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fisher substantially discloses the method, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in column 4 lines 25-55, Fisher especially discloses that: The valve attaches to the inlet side of the valve plate in the simple manner described in the first section, using molded sockets and pins. Sections of the motion of the outlet valve are shown in FIGS. 16 & 17. A photograph of the behavior of a prototype of the valve is shown in FIG. 18. The present configuration of the replaceable plastic part of the outlet valve is shown in FIGS. 19-23. The valve operates by having a flexible stem linking the block, (which incorporates the attachment sockets), to the sealing flap on the other side of the valve plate. The flow of water around the side of the valve means that the total flow area is greater than the area of the hole in the valve plate resulting in an efficient valve design, even with a valve flap opening that is usually less than 45 degrees.
Clearly, as best seen in annotated Figure 12, Fisher explicitly exhibits as how the valve plate VP comprising an inlet valve that is being in flow communication with the inlet chamber while an outlet valve being in flow communication with the outlet chamber, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Accordingly, the Examiner must assert that Fisher’s method of assembly is surely provides comprising enabling the inlet valve to be in flow communication with the inlet chamber and/or enabling the outlet valve to be in flow communication with the outlet chamber, as instantly claimed.
Further, as best seen in annotated Figure 42, Fisher evidently demonstrates as how the valve chamber is including a partition /structure/ separating portion/separator/flat object or divider portion DP that is being used to separate parts of the chamber while being located within the valve chamber.
PNG
media_image5.png
354
615
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fisher, in column 4 lines 11-25, then goes on to describe how: it is common that the valve box is opened by unscrewing a cover that is held in place by a number of bolts and sealed with a gasket. (See FIG. 14). This is the case because an outlet valve has to open towards the outlet side of the pump. This is schematically illustrated in FIG. 15. However, using a bolt-on outlet chamber in a pump has disadvantages: 1) Bolts can rust and are an additional expense; 2) The gasket will require regular maintenance; 3) The gasket may leak reducing efficiency which is critical for human-powered pumps; 4) More complex manufacturing methods are needed in order to render the mating Surfaces of the valve box flat enough to seal.
PNG
media_image2.png
386
901
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, although Fisher discloses the majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, he is silent as to the specifics of the gasket having a groove that aligns with the divider of the valve box.
Nonetheless, the use of a gasket having a groove in a valve assembly is well-known in the art, as taught by Nasr. Nasr in the same field of endeavor teaches another valve assembly, wherein, as stated in Paragraph [0034], the sealed opening is typically sealed by a gasket, which is preferably a planar, annular gasket, and wherein a plurality of radial grooves defined between corresponding radial ribs on an upper surface of the housing, the gasket preferably also defines an upper bound of the radial grooves in the housing.
PNG
media_image9.png
506
541
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Then, Nasr successfully exhibits as how: The cap portion 208 comprises a generally cylindrical inner wall 224 from which a lip 226 projects inwardly at the upper end thereof. The lower end 228 of the cap portion has a narrower outer diameter so as to fit with an interference fit inside the cup portion 206. At the upper end of the cap portion 208, an annular rim 230, together with an upper surface 232, defines a shelf within which an annular sealing gasket 260 sits. A plurality of radial grooves 234 are defined between corresponding radial ribs 236 on the upper surface 232. Inner ends 234a of the grooves 234 open into the upper end of the valve chamber, above the lip 226. Outer ends 234 b of the grooves 234 open into a circumferential groove 238, which circumscribes the upper surface 232 just inside the rim 230. The lower and side surfaces of the respective grooves 234, 238 are formed by the cup portion itself, whereas the upper surfaces thereof are formed by the lower surface 262 of the gasket 260. (see Paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
PNG
media_image10.png
463
552
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Most importantly, however, is the specific arrangement of Nasr’s circumferential groove 238 and/or radial grooves 234 that are defined between corresponding radial ribs 236 on the upper surface 232. Surely, as best seen in annotated Figures 4a&5b above, Nasr performs as how the gasket 260 in combination with the circumferential groove 238 and plurality of radial groves 234 being aligned with an annular rim 230.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using the gasket in combination with the circumferential groove and plurality of radial groves, as taught by Nasr, at the divider portion of the manually operated pump of Fisher, in order to insure a hermetic seal, as motivated by Nasr in Paragraph [0009].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised to further provide a gasket that would be further secured in place to further ensure a hermetic seal and/or provide the gasket having a groove that would be further aligned with the divider of the valve box and/or placing a gasket having a groove in alignment with a divider of the molded valve box of unitary construction, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s argument resides in contention that “Fisher does not disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention as recited in the amended claims (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 5, first paragraph), or that the amended Claim 1 now recites, in part, "pivotally mounting a molded valve box of unitary construction to a base, wherein the valve box includes a valve plate as a part of the unitary construction.” Applicants’ Remarks at page 5, second paragraph). Applicant argues that, because “as explained in the specification, "unitary construction" means that the component is "molded (e.g., injection molded) from a single part of unitary construction" rather than being assembled from multiple separate parts that are welded, fastened, or otherwise joined together”, and because “Fisher's valve box and valve plate are described as separate components, with the valve plate being a distinct element that is attached to or positioned relative to the valve box”(Applicants’ Remarks at page 5, second paragraph), the Applicant disagrees with the reference and/or combination of the references in arriving at the claimed invention. More specifically, Applicant argues that since “Fisher does not teach or suggest that the valve plate is integrally molded as part of a single-piece unitary valve box construction”, and thus, “This distinction illustrates that the integrated valve plate as part of the unitary valve box construction provides significant manufacturing advantages, reduces potential failure points at joints or attachment interfaces, and ensures precise alignment and sealing between the valve plate and the valve box chambers. Fisher's use of separate components that must be assembled together does not anticipate the claimed unitary construction.” (Applicants’ Remarks at page 5, third paragraph). As stated above in the analysis for the independent claims 1, Fisher, in column 4 lines 5-10, expressly states “These flexible valves can be made with basic injection molding equipment”. Further, as best seen in annotated Figures 11&12, Fisher evidently demonstrates as how the valve plate VP and outer wall of the valve box assembly VB form a unitary construction characterized by a continuous, uninterrupted material matrix. Still further, Applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that, the independent claim 1 merely recites that “the valve box includes a valve plate as a part of the unitary construction”. Indeed, there is no specific structure claimed or otherwise disclosed by Applicant which makes this interpretation unreasonable.
Applicant continues to argue that “Fisher's piston is described primarily as a component that reciprocates within the cylinder to generate pumping action, without teaching the integration of shelves, aperture, and posts into a single unitary molded body. The present application's piston structure is specifically designed such that the shelves provide defined surfaces against which the piston cups seat, the aperture allows passage of the pump shaft and provides structural reinforcement, and the posts extend through the piston cups to secure them in precise alignment. This level of structural integration and functional coordination is not disclosed or suggested in Fisher. The absence of this teaching defeats the anticipation rejection with respect to claims 1 through 3 and all claims dependent therefrom.” (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 6, third paragraph).
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Examiner pointed out that Fisher reference explicitly teaches that “the piston disks and handle bar are welded to the piston stem in a fixture. The leak valve is drilled in the top plate and the molded splash cap is fitted prior to welding.” (see column 7, lines 32-35).
Essentially, as stated above, Fisher’s piston assembly is designed as a single, continuous piece with the structural integrity of the component via an injection molding.
Applicant additionally asserts that “Fisher describes a valve attachment mechanism employing molded sockets and pins, which is fundamentally different from the shaped-aperture retention system claimed in the present application. Fisher's valve attaches to the inlet side of the valve plate using molded sockets and pins, with the valve operating by having a flexible stem linking a block to a sealing flap, and the valve designed to be oval shaped to meet design criteria for insertion through the outlet valve plate. This pin-and-socket attachment mechanism requires separate structural features (pins molded onto or attached to the valves, and corresponding sockets formed in or on the valve plate) to achieve mechanical retention” (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 7, first paragraph) and/or “Fisher's pin-and-socket system does not teach or suggest the shaped-aperture approach claimed in the present application. The structural and functional differences between these two retention mechanisms are patent-defeating. Fisher's failure to disclose the shaped apertures with complementary valve shapes defeats the anticipation rejection with respect to claim 10” (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 7, second paragraph).
Certainly, just because Fisher demonstrates another arrangement of the valve box and/or valve plate and/or piston not envisioned by the Applicant, these do not discredit the valve box and/or valve plate and/or piston also disclosed by Fisher.
Further, the Examiner notes that the reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.Cir.1993).
Surely, Fisher discloses all the structural limitations of the claim and is therefore fully capable of carrying out, any and all uses of such a structure. Whether or not the structure is used in such a manner is dependent on a future act of use and not any structural differences (MPEP 2114).
Then, Applicant also asserts that “Fisher does not teach or suggest an internal filler cap integrated with the pump shaft handle assembly that delivers priming fluid through the pump shaft interior, through weep holes in the piston, and over the piston cups and/or “Fisher does not disclose a stopper cap with the specific external mounting about the cylinder exterior, enlarged outer diameter, and inward-facing rim that blocks the cylinder lumen as claimed in the present application” (see Applicants’ Remarks at page 7, third paragraph).
Nonetheless, as stated above in the analysis, the manually operated pump, as disclosed by Fisher, is certainly designed such that a stopper cap, which is defined by the splash cap, is being disposed at a proximal end of the cylinder or hip pump’s cylinder PC or removable cylinder which allows access to the valve box and being adapted to prevent the pump shaft from being fully pulled out of the cylinder.
In other words, the method of assembling is clearly comprising: installing a stopper cap at a proximal end of the cylinder and/or the stopper cap being adapted to prevent the pump shaft from being fully pulled out of the cylinder, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
With respect to the filler cap, it should be noted that the Rausenberger reference was brought specifically for the purpose of showing a filler cap assembly and/or how the cover serves as an operating handle for releasing and sealing the closure and is adapted to be retracted into substantially flush relation with the surrounding surface of the container for minimum wind resistance and is fitted with a spring arranged to raise the cover to an operating position, and wherein provision is made for releasably locking the cover in its retracted position by a simple rotational movement of a relatively few degrees (see column 1 lines 41-52).
Rausenberger, in column 8 lines 45-60, especially teaches as how: A filler cap assembly for the inlet of a container to retain positive pressure on the contents thereof, comprising an adapter for said container including an annular rim defining an inlet, opening, a closure adapted to seat on said rim, a clamp adapted to engage the underside of said rim, a stud including a portion of larger diameter positioned above said closure and a portion of reduced diameter extending through said closure and supporting said clamp thereon (see column 8 lines 45-60).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the filler cap assembly as taught by Rausenberger to the method of Fisher, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of filler caps in pumping systems, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the fluid flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
The fact that Applicant’s stopper cap and/or filler cap may or may not be different than that disclosed by the Fisher reference and/or combination of Fisher/ Rausenberger does not discredit the stopper cap and/or filler cap of Fisher and/or combination of Fisher/ Rausenberger, absent claim limitations that require a narrower interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.Cir.1993). Whether or not the structure is used in such a manner is dependent on a future act of use and not any structural differences (MPEP 2114). The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya,184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). Moreover, the Examiner asserts that the test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLauqhlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
It is also noted that many of Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with
the claims. Exemplary are Applicant’s arguments starting on page 5 which extensively
reference the specification and discuss various subjects such as “The specification explicitly contrasts this with prior art constructions where components were "formed of a separate inlet plate, a separate outlet plate, and separate connectors to the inlet and outlet pipes / tubes, all welded together” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 5).and/or such as “the present application's molded piston of unitary construction includes specific integrated structural features including opposing shelves, a central aperture extending through the piston, and one or more posts extending from the shelves and adapted to support the pair of opposing piston cups. The specification describes this piston as being "formed from a single molded (e.g., injection molded) part of unitary construction" with "a complex shape adapted to at least one of (i) support and / or accept the pump shaft, and (ii) house an upper piston cup and an opposing lower piston cup. "This contrasts with prior art constructions where "the piston is formed from multiple disks separately attached to the pump shaft." (See Applicants’ Remarks at page 6, second paragraph).
For clarity, the Examiner notes that "under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (see MPEP 2111).
Consequently, regardless of what assumptions Applicant is willing to make, Fisher reference surely discloses all of the limitations of the independent claim 1. Whether or not the structure is used in such a manner is dependent on a future act of use and not any structural differences (MPEP 2114). In fact, Applicant has recited no structure which makes this interpretation of Itoh unreasonable.
Applicant's assertions of the allowability of claims 1-10 are based on the alleged distinction between the Fisher reference and the claimed invention. Since the arguments related to the Fisher reference were unpersuasive, it is believed that the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 USC §103 are deemed appropriate.
Due to the aforementioned reasons, the Applicants' arguments are not considered persuasive and so the current rejections are not being withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 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 supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights