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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 is a dependent claim to claim 1, presented as the method of operating the device of claim 1. However, the structural elements presented in claim 1 are repeated in claim 15 with the articles a/an, these recitations should be amended to properly align their antecedence with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, and 12, 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “α ≤ 180°”, and the claim also recites “α ≤ 120°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Likewise, claim 12 recites the broad limitation “a controllable drive,” and the claim also recites “preferably an electronically controllable drive,” and “particularly preferable a stepper motor or a brushless DC motor.” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Regarding claims 2, and 12, the phrases "preferably" and “particularly preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 – 8, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0101439, “Freudenberger,” in view of US 2005/0244276, “Pfister.”
Regarding Claim 1: Freudenberger discloses a metering pump (Figures 1 – 5) for delivering a metering volume of a fluid ([0001], “an oscillating movement of the displacement member so that the displacement member, interacting with an outlet and inlet valve in alternate succession, leads to a pump stroke (pressure stroke) and an intake stroke (suction stroke) and thus delivery of a medium to be metered”), comprising: at least one metering head (12) in which a metering chamber (16) is arranged (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 2; At least [0037]); a displacement element (13) that can be moved back and forth between a first and a second position on a movement axis (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 2; [0035], “The axis of the eccentric shaft 17 and the longitudinal axis 18 of the thrust ring 20 and the thrust rod 19 are respectively disposed in the horizontal plane and form a right angle to each other,” and [0037], “a diaphragm 13 made for example from plastic material operates as the displacement member”), wherein the displacement element delimits the metering chamber (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 2), and a volume of the metering chamber in the first position of the displacement element is larger than the volume of the metering chamber in the second position of the displacement element ([0037]); and a drive (2) rotating about a rotation axis (The rotation axis of at least the motor and the motor shaft into the transmission as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2 and as further described in at least [0035]), wherein a rotational movement of the drive about the rotation axis is converted by a gear arrangement (At least 17, 20, and the transmission) into an oscillating movement of a connecting rod (19) during operation of the metering pump ([0003], “rotary movement of the drive motor is converted into an oscillating movement of the displacement member by a transmission unit,” and [0005] – [0006]), the connecting rod being connected to the displacement element in such a way that the displacement element is moved back and forth between the first and the second position along the movement axis ([0037], “diaphragm 13 is displaced in an oscillating movement by means of the eccentric drive which reciprocates the thrust rod 19 on the longitudinal axis”); however, Freudenberger fails to explicitly disclose a drive arrangement characterized in that during operation of the metering pump (1), the drive (20) performs a pendular movement with a twist angle of α < 360°and a frequency of f, and the gear arrangement (21) comprises a cam gear (23) that is arranged on the rotation axis (200) and has a curved running surface (230, 231) that deviates at least in sections from a circular path (300) around the rotation axis (200), wherein the connecting rod (22) rolls over a roller (24) on the running surface (230, 231), so that a stroke length of the displacement element (12) is determined by the twist angle a and a slope of the running surface (230, 231), and a stroke frequency of the displacement element is determined by the frequency f.
Pfister teaches a metering pump (Figures 1 – 4; At least [0001] – [0004]) comprising a drive (2) rotating about an axis (The axis of shaft 12) coupled with a gear arrangement (8, 9, 10, 11) and a connecting rod (7), characterized in that during operation of the metering pump, the drive performs a pendular movement ([0029], “output of the pump may advantageously be varied by acting on the number of steps performed by the rotor of the stepping motor before the change in direction”) with a twist angle of α < 360° ([0012]) and a frequency of f ([0014], “output of the pump can thus be varied not only by changing the reciprocating frequency of the piston but also its magnitude by means of an electronic control for the stepping motor”), and the gear arrangement comprises a cam gear (14) that is arranged on the rotation axis (As shown in at least Figures 1 – 4) and has a curved running surface (20) that deviates at least in sections from a circular path around the rotation axis (As shown in at least Figures 2a and 2b, at least portions 20a and 20b deviate from a circular path around the rotation axis), wherein the connecting rod rolls over a roller (15) on the running surface, so that a stroke length of the displacement element is determined by the twist angle α and a slope of the running surface (As shown in at least Figures 2a and 2b; The geometry of the cam surface will dictate the stroke length in a manner well known in the art), and a stroke frequency of the displacement element is determined by the frequency f (At least [0029], “It is also possible to vary the pumped output by varying the speed of movement of the piston member by electronically controlling the frequency of the steps of the stepping motor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive and motion transfer arrangement for the metering pump of Freudenberger with the drive and motion transfer arrangement of Pfister metering pump as such an arrangement will allow for precise drive control through the use of the stepper drive (Pfister, [0030]) and that such a modification is viewed as a simple substitution of one known drive arrangement for that of another. Such a substitution would have been obvious since, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 2: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 1; once combined, Pfister further teaches where the following applies to the twist angle: α ≤ 180°and preferably α ≤ 120°(As shown in at least Figures 2a and 2b; The twist angle of the drive of Pfister is shown as being approximately 90° such that the angle α is both ≤ 180° and ≤ 120°).
Regarding Claim 3: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 1; once combined, Pfister further teaches wherein the curved running surface has different slopes (As shown in at least Figures 2a and 2b; Elements 20a, 20b, 20c, and 20d, are shown as having different slopes with respect to their surface orientations relative to the central axis of rotation of the cam).
Regarding Claim 4: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 1; once combined, Pfister further teaches wherein a slope of the curved running surface is constant (As shown in at least Figures 2a and 2b; Each of the curved surfaces 20d and 20c are shown as having a slope which is constant), wherein the curved running surface is optionally defined by a circular path around a center, wherein the center differs from the rotation axis (It is noted that the claim limitations after the recitation of the term “optional” are not interpreted as being required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 5: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 1; once combined, Pfister further teaches wherein the cam gear is designed as a disc (It is noted that the term “design as” is bring broadly interpreted as directed towards the shape of the cam gear, as such the cam gear of Pfister is broadly viewed as reading over a disc shape as shown in at least the side views provided by at least Figures 1 and 3; [0027], “The cam member 14 is, in this example, in the form of an essentially flat disc”), wherein the disc has a groove (18) that comprises the curved running surface (As shown in at least Figures 1 – 2b and as additionally described in at least [0027] – [0028]), so that the connecting rod is guided in the groove via the roller (As shown in at least Figures 1 – 4; [0027]), the groove optionally being closed (It is noted that the claim limitations after the recitation of the term “optional” are not interpreted as being required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 6: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 5; once combined, Pfister further teaches wherein an arc length of the groove is defined by an opening angle β around the rotation axis, wherein a ≤ β (The twist angle is necessarily less than or equal to the length of the arc, broadly interpreted as being established by the distance between extreme angular positions 20a and 20b, as a twist angle larger than the arc length opening angle β would result in the cam and the roller crashing and rendering the device inoperable for its intended use).
Regarding Claim 7: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 1; once combined, Pfister further teaches wherein the curved running surface has at least two sections, optionally three sections, wherein at least in each case two sections of the curved running surface have a different slope (As shown in at least Figures 2a and 2b; Elements 20a, 20b, 20c, and 20d, are shown as having different slopes with respect to their surface orientations relative to the central axis of rotation of the cam). It is noted that the claim limitations after the recitation of the term “optional” are not interpreted as being required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 8: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 7; once combined, Pfister further teaches wherein a first section (20a, 20b) and a third section (The other of 20a, 20b) of the curved running surface have a smaller slope than a second section (20c, 20d), which is arranged in a circumferential direction with respect to the rotation axis between the first and the third section (As shown in at least Figures 2a and 2b; The slope of the sections is broadly interpreted as being formed by an angle between a tangent of the curve and the centerline of the pivot point of the cam, as shown, each of the first and third sections are capable of producing a tangent with an angle of 0° relative to the pivot point while the curved sections connecting the first and third sections are capable of producing tangents with an angles approaching 90°. It is noted that such an interpretation broadly reads over the claim as recited and that the claim as recited does not sufficiently describe the structure which would read over a narrow interpretation such as that provided by at least Figures 6a and 6b of the instant application which present arc lengths of a curve having different radiuses originating from the same or offset vertices near the center of the cam).
Regarding Claim 12: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 1; once combined, Pfister further teaches wherein the drive is a controllable drive, preferably an electronically controllable drive and particularly preferably a stepper motor ([0023], “a stepping electric motor 2”) or a brushless DC motor.
Regarding Claim 13: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 1; once combined, Pfister further teaches wherein the gear arrangement has a reducing gear (5) that is arranged between the drive and the cam gear (At least [0024], “The gearbox 5 comprises gearwheels 8, 9, 10, 11 effecting a reduction of the transmission ratio between the shaft 12 of the rotor and the output shaft 13 of the gearbox.”).
Regarding Claim 15: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump of claim 1; Claim 15 is directed towards the operation of the device of claim 1. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. (MPEP 2112.02)
Claim(s) 10, and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0101439, “Freudenberger,” in view of US 2005/0244276, “Pfister,” and US 2012/0097025, “Fritsch.”
Regarding Claim 10: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 5; however, once combined, Pfister fails to further teach wherein the disc has a plurality N of, optionally closed, grooves (25, 25', 25", 25"'), each comprising a curved running surface that deviates, at least in sections, from a circular path around the rotation axis, wherein N = {2, 3, 4}, and wherein the grooves are arranged around 360°/N in a mirror-inverted manner with respect to the rotation axis. The device of Pfister teaches a singular groove.
Fritsch teaches a drive mechanism for positive displacement machines such as a diaphragm pump (Figures 1 – 5; [0001]), and further teaches wherein the drive mechanism is coupled to a plurality of actuators N, wherein N = {2, 3, 4} (As shown in at least Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the piston and cam interface of Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, to be operable with a plurality of grooves coupled to a plurality of piston actuators, as taught by Fritsch, as such a multi piston arrangement would have allowed for a reduction in size over similarly arranged individual pumping units (Fritsch, [0025]). It is further noted that such a modification is viewed as a simple duplication of the essential working parts of Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of pumping arrangements, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B))
Regarding Claim 11: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 10; once combined, Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, further teaches comprising a plurality of metering heads, each with a metering chamber and a displacement element, wherein a plurality M of connecting rods is provided, wherein one displacement element in each case is connected to one of the grooves via a respective connecting rod (Once duplicated in view of the aforesaid rejection of claim 10; The metering pump will comprise a number of metering chambers, displacement elements, and connecting rods connected in the same manner of operation as those presented in claim 1, such that each displacement element will be connected to one of the duplicated grooves of the combined apparatus).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0101439, “Freudenberger,” in view of US 2005/0244276, “Pfister,” and US 6,230,862, “Reik.”
Regarding Claim 14: Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, teaches the metering pump according to claim 1; however, once combined, Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, is silent as to a low-friction coating between the cam and the roller and as such fails to explicitly disclose or teach wherein at least one running surface of the cam gear is coated with a sliding coating.
Reik teaches a roller and cam gear interface (23, 25), similar in arrangement to that of the roller and cam interface of Pfister, and further teaches wherein at least one running surface of the cam gear is coated with a sliding coating (Cl. 9, ln. 12, “A coating or jacket of low-friction material can be provided in the region of contact between the pin 25 and the cam disc 23”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified at least one surface of the gam gear with a sliding coating, as taught by Reik, with the predicted results that such a coating will reduce the friction of the sliding interface in a manner well known in the art such that longevity of the interface is increased.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein a slope of the running surface is selected such that for a movement of the connecting rod along the movement axis of h1 = 1 mm, αh1 = α/h1 slope angle is between 5° and 360°, and optionally 8°≤ α ≤ 90°.” Freudenberger, in view of Pfister, fail to explicitly disclose or teach an arrangement of the cam gear interface “wherein a slope of the running surface is selected such that for a movement of the connecting rod along the movement axis of h1 = 1 mm, αh1 = α/h1 slope angle is between 5° and 360°, and optionally 8°≤ α ≤ 90°.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,555,985 – Stepping Motor Control Device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN DOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0900 - 1700.
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.
/BENJAMIN DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2026.02.13
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2/18/2026