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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 28 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending in the application.
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 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 1, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim. Line 13 recites “a clamping piece” and claim 20 recites “a support element with a support surface” and claim 24 recites “the support surface is arranged on the clamping piece. Separately reciting “a clamping piece” and “support element” would suggest that these two elements are separate structures, but referring back to the disclosure, it appears that these two claim elements are both referring to element 23 (such as shown in Fig. 2). For purposes of examination the clamping piece and support element will be interpreted as being the same structure, as appears consistent with the disclosure as originally filed.
Claims 3-15 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 10-13 fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 is directed to a “membrane system for a metering pump comprising a membrane”. However, claims 10-13 only refer to the membrane of claim 1, not the membrane system and thus do not include all of the limitations of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0056089 A1 to Gledhill III et al. (Gledhill).
In reference to claim 1, Gledhill discloses a membrane system for a metering pump (interpreted as intended use) comprising a membrane (200; Figs. 2A-C), the membrane system comprising: an outer section (outside perimeter) intended to be clamped (again, intended use; however see Fig. 3), a central section (adjacent to element 202), and a flexing section surrounding the central section, which connects both the outer section and the central section, wherein the flexing section is designed to allow the central section to move back and forth relative to the outer section between a first position and a second position along a longitudinal axis, wherein the membrane has a first side (left side of Fig. 2A) intended to come into contact with a dosing fluid (again, intended use), and a second side (right side of Fig. 2A) not intended to come into contact with the dosing fluid (again, intended use), as well as a core (202) that rests against the second side at the central section, wherein the membrane comprises a fastening section (portion of 200 under the “head” of 202), wherein the membrane system comprises a clamping piece (206, 208) on the second side of the membrane, the clamping piece clamping the fastening section against the core, such that the fastening section is clamped between the core and the clamping piece, wherein the fastening section forms a fixation interface such that portions of the membrane on one side of the fastening section are fixed relative to the core while portions of the membrane on another side of the fastening section form the flexing section, wherein a support element (206) with a support surface is provided, wherein the support surface is in contact with the second side of the membrane in the area of the flexing section in the second position and is not in contact with the second side of the membrane in the area of the flexing section in the first position (due to the flexibility of the membrane, there are portions of 206 that could be selected to meet this limitation), wherein the support surface is arranged on the clamping piece, wherein the core has an externally threaded section (see Fig. 2C), and wherein the clamping piece is screwed onto the externally threaded section of the core (via 208).
In reference to claim 4, Gledhill discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, wherein the support surface is convexly curved (see Fig. 2A).
In reference to claim 8, Gledhill discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, wherein the support surface is rotationally symmetrical (see Figs. 2A-C).
In reference to claim 9, Gledhill discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, characterized in that the fastening section is located at a boundary between the central section and the flexing section (see Figs. 2A-C).
In reference to claim 15, Gledhill discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, wherein the clamping piece is arranged on the second side of the membrane and does not contact the first side of the membrane (see Figs. 2A-C).
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) 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gledhill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2020/0149522 A1 to Gledhill et al. (Gledhill 2).
In reference to claim 3, Gledhill discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the support surface material. However, Gledhill 2 discloses a similar membrane system comprising a membrane (604; Fig. 6), core (702; Fig. 7) with support surface (704), characterized in that the support surface is at least partially made of an elastic material, or a plastic (par. 0053), an elastomer, or EPDM or NBR. 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 plastic material disclosed by Gledhill 2 for the known material of Gledhill. 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 claim 5, the modified Gledhill discloses the membrane system according to claim 3, characterized in that the core is at least partially convexly curved on the side resting against the central section (see Fig. 2A), and optionally wherein at least a section facing the support surface is convexly curved (interpreted as optional).
In reference to claim 6, the modified Gledhill teaches the membrane system according to claim 5, but fails to explicitly disclose or teach the particular shapes of the core and support surfaces. However, it has been held that changes in shape, absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant, is obvious (see MPEP 2144.04). As such, 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 selected a shape such that the sum of the curvature radius of the support surface and the membrane thickness at the section in contact with the support surface, and the sum of the curvature radius of the convexly curved section of the core and the membrane thickness at the section in contact with the convexly curved section of the core, are substantially equal.
In reference to claim 7, the modified Gledhill teaches the membrane system according to claim 5, characterized in that the membrane has a thickness dR at an edge of the central section and a thickness dS at the section in contact with the support surface in the second position (the membrane of Gledhill appears to be of uniform thickness), wherein in a sectional view, at least one edge of the central section and an imaginary line spaced from the support surface by the difference |dS−dR| run along a continuous and inflection-free section of a mathematical function (since the thickness is uniform, dS-dR=0, the two lines along the support surface of Figs. 1-4 are collinear).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gledhill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,074,757 A to Horn (Horn).
In reference to claim 10, Gledhill discloses the membrane for a membrane system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the membrane has two layers separated by a fabric. However, Horn discloses a similar membrane system wherein the membrane has two layers separated by a fabric (see Figs. 7-9). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the membrane arrangement disclosed by Horn into the system of Gledhill. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Horn teaches that the arrangement advantageously increases the lifetime of the membrane (col. 3, lines 35-54).
In reference to claim 11, the modified Gledhill teaches the membrane according to claim 10, characterized in that the membrane has a protective layer (Horn, 20; Figs. 7-9) on its second side, which extends over the outer section, the flexing section, and the fastening section, but not over the central section (aperture through which rod 7 passes through).
In reference to claim 12, the modified Gledhill teaches the membrane according to claim 11, wherein the second side has a groove-shaped recess (Gledhill, accommodating core 202) on the side of the flexing section facing the central section.
In reference to claim 13, the modified Gledhill teaches the membrane according to claim 10, characterized in that the first side of the membrane has a convexly curved section at the transition from the outer section to the flexing section, a convexly curved section at the transition from the central section to the flexing section, and a concavely curved section connecting the two convexly curved sections (see Gledhill, Figs. 2A-C; Horn, Figs. 7-9).
In reference to claim 14, the modified Gledhill teaches a metering diaphragm pump with a membrane system according to claim 1, wherein the membrane comprises two layers separated by a fabric (see Horn, Figs. 7-9), wherein the membrane is clamped at its outer section (see Gledhill; Fig. 3), the metering diaphragm pump has a cavity that is divided by the membrane into a metering chamber (left side of membrane) and a working chamber (right side of membrane), wherein an actuator is provided that moves the core back and forth between the first and second positions (316, 318, 320, 322 of Gledhill), but fails to explicitly disclose the particular ratio of diameters. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04). As such, 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 selected the ratio of the outer diameter of the flexing section to the distance between the first and second positions of the core is less than 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
04 August 2026
Prosecution Insights