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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I directed to claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13-15, 24, 25, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39 and 40 in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the axis" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 11, 13-14, 24, 25, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conti (WO 90/12962) in view of West (US 2017/0298919). Regarding Claim 1:In Figures 1-2, Conti discloses a pump (diaphragm pump) for pumping a fluid, the pump comprising: a first fluid chamber (11); a first inlet check valve (12) and a first outlet check valve (14) positioned, respectively, upstream and downstream of the first fluid chamber and which regulate flow into and out of the first fluid chamber (see page 7, 1st paragraph); an electric motor (108) comprising a stator (19) and a rotor (20, 21), the rotor (20, 21) configured to generate a rotational output (see abstract); a drive (rod 3) that converts the rotational output from the electric motor into a linear reciprocating motion (see page 9 1st paragraph); a first fluid displacer (1) configured to be linearly reciprocated at least partially within the first fluid chamber by the drive to pump the fluid, wherein the first fluid displacer (1) is reciprocated through a continuous series of pump cycles (see page 8, 2nd paragraph), each pump cycle comprising a pumping stroke phase (stroke to the left is the pumping stroke phase as explained on page 8, 2nd paragraph), a suction stroke phase (stroke to the right is the suction stroke phase as explained on page 8, 2nd paragraph), and a changeover phase that occurs in each transition between the pumping stroke phase and the suction stroke phase in which the first fluid displacer reverses direction (transition between the stroke from the left to the right direction requires reversal of the drive rod 3 and at this point changeover occurs as explained on page 8, 2nd paragraph); and a controller (29) configured to regulate energy delivery to the electric motor in a priming mode (not explicitly mentioned but priming is a well-known function of these types of pumps during startup and does not need a separate disclosure as priming naturally occurs during initial startup) during which the pump is primed and in a pumping mode (the controller continuously evaluates the motor current and other operating characteristics during all modes of operation and regulates the pumping cycles via energy (current) delivery accordingly, see pages 10-11).Conti does not explicitly disclose controlling the first fluid displacer to move differently through the changeover phase in the priming mode than through the changeover phase in the pumping mode. However, in Figures 1-3, West discloses a similar pump (double diaphragm pump 10), wherein a controller (12) regulates the energy delivery in the priming mode such that the rotor rotates to cause the first fluid displacer to move differently through the changeover phase in the priming mode than through the changeover phase in the pumping mode (as mentioned in paragraph [0019]: “Another aspect of the present disclosure includes controlling operational aspects of the pump by a control unit, wherein the controlling operational aspects of the pump further comprises transitioning the pump between a priming mode wherein the control unit increases one or more of a speed or stroke length of the magnetic armature and a normal mode wherein the control unit returns to a normal speed and normal stroke length of the magnetic armature.” Furthermore, in paragraph [0045] West states: “Indeed, the configurations of the pump 10 may provide a priming mode, wherein the pump 10 may run an over-speed or over-stroke to more effectively remove air from the pump 10 while priming. Thereafter, the pump 10 may be programed to return or revert to a normal mode having a shorter stroke length to preserve the life of the diaphragms 42 and 52.” This clearly indicates that the speed of West’s fluid displacer (diaphragms 42 or 52) can be regulated in a priming mode to be faster than in a normal pumping mode and this would include the changeover phase in each mode such that the first fluid displacer would move differently (i.e., move faster) in the changeover phase of the priming mode as opposed to the changeover phase in the pumping mode).Hence, based on West’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Conti’s controller logic based on West’s controller logic, in order to include a controlled priming mode wherein the first fluid displacer could move faster than its movement in the pumping mode, since doing so would ensure that the air trapped in the pump could be removed more efficiently. Note that Conti already includes all the structure required to control the pump speed as required and the proposed modification does not include a change in structure but only includes a change in the control algorithm. Regarding Claim 2:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller (Conti’s controller 29 with modified control logic based on West’s teachings) is configured to regulate the energy delivery to the electric motor such that the rotor rotates to cause the first fluid displacer to pause in the changeover phase in the priming mode to allow one or both of the first inlet check valve and the first outlet check valve to close (as mentioned in Conti’s page 10, 2nd paragraph: “The direction of the drive member or rotor spindle 21 is regulated by the controller 29. That is, a controller 29 which is typical of such types of devices known in the art is utilized to sense and control the number of revolutions of the rotor 21 and the speed of those revolutions. The controller thus automatically controls the number of revolutions of the rotor spindle 21 and automatically reverses the direction of the rotor spindle 21 when a preset number of revolutions or cycles are counted by the controller 29. This number of rotations is adjustable to thereby control the length of stroke of the rod 3. The duration of each stroke is also controllable by controlling the speed of rotation of the rotor 21. This, in turn, controls the pumping speed in cycles per minute. Additionally, as the fluid becomes more viscous or is originally highly viscous, the force applied to the diaphragm to the rotor spindle 21 will cause the rotor spindle 21 to slow. Motor current then increases. When the motor current reaches a maximum preset current, the motor controls will stop the motor and apply a brake.” It is known in the art that at the reversal of motor direction to change the stroke direction there is generally a brief pause as the direction changes. Hence, even in the changeover phase of the priming mode the controller 29 would pause the first fluid displacer as it changes direction even if it is a very brief pause. This pause would apply to both the priming mode as well as the pumping mode. Closure of the inlet/outlet valves would happen as the pause would change the direction of fluid flow into or out of the first fluid chamber).Regarding Claim 3:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the pause occurs at a point of reversing direction such that the first fluid displacer moves in a first direction along the axis, stops in place for a period of time, then moves in a second direction along the axis (as explained above in the rejection of claim 2, at the point of stroke reversal there is a brief pause and then the fluid displacer moves in the different direction along an axis 120).Regarding Claim 4:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller energizes the electric motor during the pause to hold the position of the rotor so that the first fluid displacer can resist moving due to back pressure in the first fluid chamber (at the stroke limit (i.e., preset maximum stroke length, see Conti’s page 8, 2nd paragraph), the first fluid displacer is paused briefly before the controller reverses the motor direction to move the first fluid displacer in the opposite direction. This would cause the rotor to pause and hold position at the stroke limit such the fluid displacer would also not move due to back pressure in the first fluid chamber).
Regarding Claim 5:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller (Conti’s controller 29 with modified control logic based on West’s teachings) is configured to cause the motor to drive the fluid displacer to a first constant speed during one of the pumping stroke phase and the suction stroke phase when operating the pump in the priming mode, and wherein the controller is configured to cause the motor to drive the first fluid displacer to a second constant speed during the one of the pumping stroke phase and the suction stroke phase when operating the pump in the pumping mode, and wherein the first constant speed differs from the second constant speed (In paragraph [0045] West states: “Indeed, the configurations of the pump 10 may provide a priming mode, wherein the pump 10 may run an over-speed or over-stroke to more effectively remove air from the pump 10 while priming. Thereafter, the pump 10 may be programed to return or revert to a normal mode having a shorter stroke length to preserve the life of the diaphragms 42 and 52.” This change in speed would be applied to Conti’s controller to control the pumping speed at a first constant speed in the priming mode and a second constant speed in the normal pumping mode wherein the first constant speed is greater than the second constant speed).Regarding Claims 10 and 11:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller (Conti’s controller 29 with modified control logic based on West’s teachings) is configured to energize the electric motor to displace the first fluid displacer through one of the pumping stroke phase and the suction stroke phase based on a first speed setpoint while in the priming mode (per claim 10) and wherein the controller is configured to energize the electric motor to displace the first fluid displacer through the one of the pumping stroke phase and the suction stroke phase based on a second speed setpoint in the pumping mode, the second speed setpoint differing from the first speed setpoint (per claim 11) (In paragraph [0045] West states: “Indeed, the configurations of the pump 10 may provide a priming mode, wherein the pump 10 may run an over-speed or over-stroke to more effectively remove air from the pump 10 while priming. Thereafter, the pump 10 may be programed to return or revert to a normal mode having a shorter stroke length to preserve the life of the diaphragms 42 and 52.” This change in speed would be applied to Conti’s controller to control the pumping speed at a first constant speed in the priming mode and a second constant speed in the normal pumping mode wherein the first constant speed is greater than the second constant speed).Regarding Claim 13:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller is configured to regulate the energy delivery to the electric motor such that the rotor rotates to cause the first fluid displacer to, in the changeover phase during the priming mode, one or both of pause and move slower as compared to the changeover phase during the pumping mode (as also explained in the rejection of claim 2: “ It is known in the art that at the reversal of motor direction to change the stroke direction there is generally a brief pause of the first fluid displacer as the direction changes. Hence, even in the changeover phase of the priming mode the controller 29 would pause the first fluid displacer as it changes direction even if it is a very brief pause. This pause would apply to both the priming mode as well as the pumping mode.” It is also noted that this stoppage would also include a slowdown or deceleration of the first fluid displacer as it approaches the preset maximum stroke length). Regarding Claim 14:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller (Conti’s controller 29 with modified control logic based on West’s teachings) is configured to regulate the energy delivery to the electric motor such that the rotor rotates to cause the first fluid displacer to move slower in the pumping and suction phases during the pumping mode as compared to when the first fluid displacer moves in the pumping and suction phases during the priming mode (In paragraph [0045] West states: “Indeed, the configurations of the pump 10 may provide a priming mode, wherein the pump 10 may run an over-speed or over-stroke to more effectively remove air from the pump 10 while priming. Thereafter, the pump 10 may be programed to return or revert to a normal mode having a shorter stroke length to preserve the life of the diaphragms 42 and 52.” This change in speed would be applied to Conti’s controller to control the pumping speed at a first constant speed in the priming mode and a second constant speed in the normal pumping mode wherein the second constant speed is slower than the first constant speed).Regarding Claim 24:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller causes the first fluid displacer to move such that in the changeover phase while in the priming mode, the first fluid displacer at least one of pauses and moves slower as compared to movement of the fluid displacer during the changeover phase while in the pumping mode (as also explained in the rejection of claim 2: “ It is known in the art that at the reversal of motor direction to change the stroke direction there is generally a brief pause of the first fluid displacer as the direction changes. Hence, even in the changeover phase of the priming mode the controller 29 would pause the first fluid displacer as it changes direction even if it is a very brief pause. This pause would apply to both the priming mode as well as the pumping mode.” It is also noted that this stoppage would also include a slowdown or deceleration of the first fluid displacer as it approaches the preset maximum stroke length).Regarding Claim 25:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the changeover phase occurs from a beginning of deceleration in a first axial direction along the axis (120) to a beginning of acceleration in a second axial direction along the axis, the second axial direction opposite the first axial direction (as mentioned by Conti in page 8, 2nd paragraph: “In continued operation as described, diaphragms 1 and 2 continued to move to the left until the preset maximum stroke length is obtained by the rod 3. The electric motor assembly 108 then reverses the direction of the diaphragm connecting rod 3 to the right.” It is known that while the first fluid displacer reaches its maximum stroke length deceleration would be required in order to stop it at this stroke length. After this deceleration, the motor reverses direction and would move the first fluid displacer in the opposite axial direction after a brief pause which would require acceleration. This phase of deceleration in one axial direction and acceleration in the opposite axial direction along the axis 120 can be considered a changeover phase).Regarding Claim 30:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller is configured to regulate the energy delivery to the electric motor such that the rotor rotates to cause the first fluid displacer to move at a first speed in the changeover phase as compared to each of the pumping stroke phase and the suction stroke phase, wherein the first speed is slower than a maximum speed that the electric motor could cause the first fluid displacer to move at during the changeover phase without causing an internal collision within the pump (as mentioned by Conti in page 8, 2nd paragraph: “In continued operation as described, diaphragms 1 and 2 continued to move to the left until the preset maximum stroke length is obtained by the rod 3. The electric motor assembly 108 then reverses the direction of the diaphragm connecting rod 3 to the right.” It is known that while the first fluid displacer reaches its maximum stroke length deceleration would be required in order to stop it at this stroke length. This indicates that at least for a portion of the changeover phase the first fluid displacer decelerates to a slower speed that is lower than the maximum speed thereby preventing an internal collision since the preset maximum stroke length would ensure that internal collisions would be prevented).Regarding Claim 31:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller is configured to regulate a stroke length of the first fluid displacer during the priming mode and during the pumping mode such that the first fluid displacer has a first stroke length during the priming mode and the fluid displacer has a second stroke length different from the first stroke length during the pumping mode As explained in the modification in claim 1, the priming mode is based on the controller logic added to Conti’s controller 29 based on West’s controller logic. As mentioned in West’s paragraph [0019]: “Another aspect of the present disclosure includes controlling operational aspects of the pump by a control unit, wherein the controlling operational aspects of the pump further comprises transitioning the pump between a priming mode wherein the control unit increases one or more of a speed or stroke length of the magnetic armature and a normal mode wherein the control unit returns to a normal speed and normal stroke length of the magnetic armature.” This clearly indicates that the speed and/or stroke length can be controlled in the priming mode to be different from the speed and/or stroke length during the pumping mode.Hence, based on West’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Conti’s controller logic based on West’s controller logic, in order to further adjust the stroke length during the priming mode to be different from the stroke length during the pumping mode, since doing so would ensure that the air trapped in the pump could be removed more efficiently. Note that Conti already includes all the structure required to control the pump stroke length as required and the proposed modification does not include a change in structure but only includes a change in the control algorithm.Regarding Claim 34:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller is configured to control displacement of the first fluid displacer such that the first fluid chamber has a first compression ratio with the pump in the prime mode and a second compression ratio with the pump in the pumping mode, the first compression ratio differing from the second compression ratio (based on the proposed modification in claim 1, the pump speed is higher in the priming mode as opposed to the pumping mode resulting in different compression ratios in each mode).Regarding Claim 36:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller is configured to regulate the energy delivery to the electric motor such that a cycle lag occurs between the pump cycle of the first fluid displacer in the priming mode and the pump cycle of the first fluid displacer in the pumping mode (based on the proposed modification in claim 1, when the pump transitions from the priming mode at a higher speed to a pumping mode at a lower speed, there would inherently be a cycle lag as the controller evaluates the current draw and reduces it to reduce speed).Regarding Claim 39:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), further comprising a second fluid displacer (2, see Conti’s Figure 2) that is driven in synchrony with the first fluid displacer by the drive, the second fluid displacer linearly reciprocated at least partially within a second fluid chamber (10) through a continuous series of second pump cycles, each second pump cycle comprising a second pumping stroke phase, a second suction stroke phase, and a second changeover phase that occurs in each transition between the second pumping stroke phase and the second suction stroke phase in which the second fluid displacer reverses direction (as explained in Conti’s page 8, 2nd paragraph, the second fluid displacer 2 includes the second pumping stroke phase (to the right in Figure 2), a second suction phase (to the left in Figure 2) and a second changeover phase that comprises a transition/reversal between the aforementioned phases).Regarding Claim 40:Conti as modified by West discloses the pump (diaphragm pump), wherein the controller is configured to regulate the energy delivery to the electric motor in the changeover phase of the priming mode such that the controller energizes the motor to urge the rotor in a first direction with a first driving energy profile and then urges the rotor to spin in a second direction opposite the first direction by delivering a second driving energy profile while the rotor spins in the first direction until the rotor nears stoppage or stops, in which state the controller regulates energy delivery to the electric motor such that no motive energy is delivered to the motor or a third energy profile is delivered to hold the rotor still, and then the controller resumes delivery of the second driving energy profile to accelerate the rotor to spin in the second direction (On pages 10-11 Conti discloses that controller continuously evaluates the motor current and other operating characteristics during all modes of operation and regulates the pumping cycles via driving energy (current) delivery accordingly, see pages 10-11. As further mentioned in Conti’s page 10, 2nd paragraph: “The direction of the drive member or rotor spindle 21 is regulated by the controller 29. That is, a controller 29 which is typical of such types of devices known in the art is utilized to sense and control the number of revolutions of the rotor 21 and the speed of those revolutions. The controller thus automatically controls the number of revolutions of the rotor spindle 21 and automatically reverses the direction of the rotor spindle 21 when a preset number of revolutions or cycles are counted by the controller 29. This number of rotations is adjustable to thereby control the length of stroke of the rod 3. The duration of each stroke is also controllable by controlling the speed of rotation of the rotor 21. This, in turn, controls the pumping speed in cycles per minute. Additionally, as the fluid becomes more viscous or is originally highly viscous, the force applied to the diaphragm to the rotor spindle 21 will cause the rotor spindle 21 to slow. Motor current then increases. When the motor current reaches a maximum preset current, the motor controls will stop the motor and apply a brake.” Hence Conti discloses a first driving energy profile in a first direction along axis 120, a second driving energy profile in a second opposite direction. If the fluid is excessively viscous Conti’s controller can also issue a stop/brake command that correlates to a third energy profile and then resume pump operation using the second driving energy profile. It is noted that these parameters are controllable by Conti’s controller and can be preset as desired including any stoppages).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conti (WO 90/12962) in view of West (US 2017/0298919) in further view of Carman et al. (herein Carman) (US 2019/0078959).
Regarding Claim 15:Conti as modified by West is silent regarding a sensed condition used to exit the priming mode. It is noted that Conti further states in page 11, 2nd paragraph: “In other words, the controller 29 continuously evaluates motor current and other operating characteristics to control the output by the pump as well as to control the integrity of or protect the motor.” This clearly indicates that Conti is capable of continuously monitoring the current draw by the electric motor. Carman discloses a similar diaphragm pump. As seen in Figures 25-26 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037] Carman is monitoring a motor current draw of the pump. In paragraph [0007], Carman states: “The pump may initiate a priming mode if the measured current does not exceed the selected current value. It may be determined whether the measured current exceeds the selected current value after operating the pump in the priming mode. The pump may revert to normal operation if the measured current exceeds the selected current value after operating the pump in the priming mode.” Also, in claims 11-13 Carman states: “11. The method of claim 9, further comprising operating the pump in a priming mode if the measured current does not exceed the selected current value.12. The method of claim 11, further comprising determining whether the measured current exceeds the selected current value after operating the pump in the priming mode.
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising reverting the pump to normal operation if the measured current exceeds the selected current value after operating the pump in the priming mode.” Hence, based on Carman’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Conti’s controller logic in order to exit the priming mode based on detection that the measured current draw of the motor exceeds a selected current value, since doing so would allow for a reliable method to exit priming when the pump achieves a primed condition by allowing Conti’s controller to advantageously use the measured current it already monitors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180372083 – Hydraulic diaphragm control.US 20070041845 – Diaphragm pump stroke control in priming mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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 at 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 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights