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 26 November 2025 has been entered. New claim 15 has been added. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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, 2, 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 2697589 A1 to Degremont et al. (Degremont). A machine translation (previously provided) was relied upon for the basis of this rejection.
In reference to claim 1, Degremont discloses a membrane system for a metering pump comprising a membrane (4; Figs. 1-3), comprising: an outer section (20) intended to be clamped, a central section (21), and a flexing section (at symbol 4) 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 (see top/bottom of Fig. 1), wherein the membrane has a first side (left side of Figs.) intended to come into contact with a dosing fluid, and a second side (right side of Figs.) not intended to come into contact with the dosing fluid, as well as a core (18 or central portion of 19) that rests against the second side at the central section, wherein the membrane has a fastening section (right portion at symbol 21; Fig. 1) located on the second side, and a clamping piece (18a) is provided, wherein the core, fastening section, and clamping piece are arranged and designed such that the fastening section is held between the core and the clamping piece, characterized in that a support element (outer portions of 19) with a support surface (23, 26, 29) 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 (see Figs.).
In reference to claim 2, Degremont discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, characterized in that the support surface is arranged on the clamping piece, wherein preferably the core has a section with external threading and the clamping piece is screwed onto the external threading (interpreted as optional).
In reference to claim 4, Degremont discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, characterized in that the support surface is convexly curved (see Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 8, Degremont discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, characterized in that the support surface is rotationally symmetrical (see Figs.).
In reference to claim 9, Degremont 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.)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,145,336 A to Becker et al. (Becker).
In reference to claim 15, Becker discloses a membrane system for a metering pump comprising a membrane (2; Figs. 2, 4-7), comprising: an outer section (35) intended to be clamped, a central section (10), and a flexing section (13, 27, 29) 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 (see Figs. 5-7), wherein the membrane has a first side (top side of Figs.) intended to come into contact with a dosing fluid, and a second side (bottom side of Figs.) not intended to come into contact with the dosing fluid, as well as a core (23, 24) that rests against the second side at the central section, wherein the membrane has a fastening section (the portion surrounding the sides of elements 23 and 24) located on the second side, and a clamping piece (40) is provided, wherein the core, fastening section, and clamping piece are arranged and designed such that the fastening section is held between the core and the clamping piece, characterized in that a support element (42) 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 (see Figs. 6-7), and 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. 2 and 4-7).
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 Degremont as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0149522 A1 to Gledhill et al. (Gledhill).
In reference to claim 3, Degremont discloses the membrane system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the support surface material. However, Gledhill 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 for the known material of Degremont. 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 Degremont teaches 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. 1), and optionally wherein at least a section facing the support surface is convexly curved (interpreted as optional).
In reference to claim 6, the modified Degremont 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 Degremont 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 Degremont is 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. 1-3 are collinear).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degremont as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,074,757 A to Horn (Horn).
In reference to claim 10, Degremont 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 Degremont. 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 Degremont 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 13, the modified Degremont 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 Degremont, Figs. 1-3; Horn, Figs. 7-9).
In reference to claim 14, the modified Degremont 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 Degremont; at 20, Fig. 1), the metering diaphragm pump has a cavity that is divided by the membrane into a metering chamber (17) and a working chamber (the chamber on the opposite side of the membrane 4), wherein an actuator is provided that moves the core back and forth between the first and second positions (implicit, p. 3 of Degremont), 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Degremont as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gledhill.
In reference to claim 12, the modified Degremont teaches the membrane according to claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach the second side has a groove-shaped recess on the side of the flexing section facing the central section. However, Gledhill teaches a similar system including a membrane having a groove-shaped recess on the side of the flexing section facing the central section (see Figs. 6a, 9a). 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 shape of the membrane disclosed by Gledhill for the known shape of the modified Degremont. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 7 of the reply that Degremont fails to disclose the “fastening section of the membrane is located on the second side” as required by claim 1. Applicant argues that Degremont does not disclose a “separate fastening structure” (p. 7, 3rd paragraph). To clarify the rejection, the term “section” is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation as any portion of the membrane. The portion of membrane 21 facing the second side (right side of Figs. 1-3) that is in contact with the core (18 or central portion of 19) is being interpreted as the “fastening section”. This section is “fastened” by clamping action of the adjacent core. The claim does not require the “clamping piece” to be on the second side nor does the claim require the “fastening section” to be a separate structure of the membrane, only a section of the membrane. The rejection is proper and remains.
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
10 December 2025