Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 1, 10-12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6447216).
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi et al. discloses a pump (FIG.’s 1-4, Abstract), comprising:
a cylinder 102, 132 (FIG.’s 3 & 4, col. 2, ll. 58-62 and col. 4, ln. 45, formed in part by assembly 132, housing 102 containing piston 136, forming recited cylinder under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms);
a piston 110, 136 Id., disposed within the cylinder 132 to define a first chamber 106 and a second chamber 108 within the cylinder (as shown), wherein
the piston 110, 136 is configured to move within the cylinder to reduce a size of the first chamber 106 (under normal reciprocating operation) to discharge material from the first chamber 106 (via outlet 138); and
a conduit system 118, 120, 122 (col. 3, ll. 1-20, means 118 with purge source 120 and conduit lines 122 forming recited conduit system) configured to direct fluid 126 (col. 2, ln. 1, purging fluid) into the first chamber 106 to aerate material in the first chamber 106 (col. 3, ll. 45-60, inter alia, intended use/result limitation met by Higuchi as purge fluid intended to fluidize pumped particulate materials which indicates capability of the intended use/result).
Re. claim 10, Higuchi further discloses the cylinder 102, 136 comprises an inlet 114 (col. 2, ln. 45) that introduces material 112 (col. 3, ln. 64, particulate material) into the first chamber 106, and the conduit system 118, 120, 122, is configured to direct fluid 126 to the first chamber 106 adjacent to the inlet 114 to aerate material received via the inlet 114 (as shown and described).
Re. claim 11, Higuchi further discloses a fluid source 120 (col. 2, ln. 39, source of high-pressure purging fluid) configured to direct fluid into the first chamber 106 via the conduit system 120, 122.
Re. claim 12, Higuchi further discloses a distributor 128, 130 (col. 2, ln. 49, control system 128 and valve 130) configured to alternately enable and block fluid flow from the fluid source to the first chamber 106 via the conduit system 118, 120, 122 (col. 5, ll. 25-45, describing valve 128 operation injecting purge fluid according to normal operation).
Re. claim 14, Higuchi discloses a pump (FIG.’s 1-4, Abstract), comprising:
a cylinder 102, 132 (FIG.’s 3 & 4, col. 2, ll. 58-62 and col. 4, ln. 45, formed in part by assembly 132, housing 102, contain piston 136 thereby forming recited cylinder under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms) having an inlet 124 (col. 2, ln, 41;
a piston 110, 136 Id., disposed within the cylinder 132 to define a first chamber 106 and a second chamber 108 within the cylinder, wherein, the piston being movable within the cylinder to reduce a size of the first chamber 106 to discharge material from the first chamber 106 (via outlet 138) and to increase a size of the second chamber 108 (under normal reciprocating operation); and
a conduit system 118, 120, 122 (col. 3, ll. 1-20, formed by purge source 120 and conduit lines 122) that directs fluid 126 (col. 2, ln. 1, purge fluid) into the first chamber 106 to aerate material in the first chamber 106 (col. 3, ll. 45-60, inter alia, intended results limitation met by Higuchi as purge fluid intended to fluidize pumped particulate materials) wherein conduit system 120, 122 is configured to direct the fluid adjacent to the inlet 124 (as shown and described).
Re. claim 18, Higuchi further discloses a fluid source 120 (col. 2, ln. 39, source of high-pressure purging fluid) configured to direct fluid into the first chamber 106 via the conduit system 118, 120, 122.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6447216) in view of Oglesby (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0193299).
As to claim 13, Higuchi is discussed above and further discloses the distributor 128, 130 comprises: a first component 122, 130 comprising a supply channel fluidly coupled to the first chamber 106 via the conduit system (as shown); and a second component comprising: an inlet channel (shown connected to purge source 1200) fluidly coupled to the fluid source 120. Higuchi is silent as to a passage fluidly coupled to the inlet channel, wherein the second component is configured to rotate relative to the first component to adjust positioning of the passage relative to the supply channel, alignment of the passage with the supply channel enables fluid flow from the fluid source into the first chamber via the supply channel, and misalignment of the passage with the supply channel blocks fluid flow from the fluid source into the first chamber via the supply channel. The recited second component being configured to rotate relative to the first to adjust positioning in the supply channel reads on the structures of a conventional mechanical rotary control valve__ubiquitous in all manners of fluid plumbing systems for supplying fluid. To this point, Oglesby teaches a pumping system having a mechanical rotary control valve 40 arranged in supply channel 36, 44 with a second component (located inside) configured to rotate to enable fluid flow into a supply channel 36, 44 into a first pumping chamber 24 in the manner claimed (FIG. 1, para. 0035). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to substiture and replace the control valve of Higuchi with the rotary valve of Oglesby__a valve configuration known for predictable fluid supply control performance having expected results as shown by Oglesby. Once modified, Oglesby’s mechanical rotary control valve would be configured in the manner claimed when installed in Higuchi. The use of the valve of Oglesby in the combination of Higuchi is considered a simple substitution of one known valve for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). MPEP 2143(I)B.1
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19 and 20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 2 and 15 and dependents, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the pump of claim 1 with each recited limitation further wherein the cylinder is a first cylinder and the piston is a first piston, and the pump comprises: a second cylinder; and a second piston disposed within the second cylinder to define a third chamber and a fourth chamber within the second cylinder, wherein the second piston is configured to move within the second cylinder to reduce a size of the third chamber to discharge material from the third chamber, wherein the conduit system fluidly couples the fourth chamber and the first chamber to one another and is configured to direct fluid from the fourth chamber to the first chamber to aerate material in the first chamber.
With respect to claim 19 and dependents, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the pump of claim 19 with each recited limitation wherein a second cylinder; a second piston disposed within the second cylinder to define a third chamber and a fourth chamber within the second cylinder, the second piston being configured to move within the second cylinder to reduce a size of the third chamber to discharge material from the third chamber and to increase a size of the fourth chamber; and a conduit system that fluidly couples the fourth chamber to the first chamber, wherein the conduit system is configured to direct fluid from the fourth chamber to the first chamber to aerate material in the first chamber.
None of the prior art of record contemplates a conduit system fluidly coupling the fourth chamber__a working fluid chamber, and the first chamber--__a pumping chamber, to one another to direct fluid therebetween and aerate material in the first chamber. The aerating fluid is sourced from the working fluid chamber of the pump itself. Higuchi uses an external fluid source thus teaching away from this arrangement. Modification would not be reasonably foreseeable without benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.