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 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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 states: “the second exhaust passage includes a structure configured to delay a timing at which the differential pressure valve starts to open the second exhaust passage after an inflow of the pressurized fluid stops”. It is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim that the differential pressure valve does not open at the instant the inflow of the pressurized fluid stops (i.e. a delay in timing measured from the point the pressurized fluid stops), or if applicant is claiming there is a delay in timing with respect to some other delay (as appears to be depicted in e.g. Fig 5 of applicant’s specification). MPEP 2173.02 I states: "For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate."
Applicant’s reply filed 6/18/2026 references 0044-0045 as support for the amendment to claim 1. 0044-0045 do not use the term delay and these two paragraphs appear to reference two times wherein one time is delayed with reference to another time. Therefore, in light of the specification if applicant is attempting to claim a delay in timing with respect to some other delay (as appears to be depicted in e.g. Fig 5 disclosed in 0044-0045 of applicant’s specification), applicant is using a relative limitations “delay a timing” without specifying a reference from which the claimed delay in timing is determined. How can a person of ordinary skill in the art determine if a given structure causes a delay if no reference is specified from which the claimed delay is determined? A given structure could be said to cause a delay with respect to one frame of reference and at the same time that same given structure could be said not to cause a delay with respect to some other frame of reference. Without a frame of reference defined in the claim, the claim is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the intended scope of the invention. In other words, a delay in timing with respect to what?
The claims will be examined as best understood under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and interpretations of the indefinite limitations will be provided as mappings to the disclosure of the prior art as indicated in the prior art rejections below as per MPEP 2173.06 I.
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami JP2021143647A in view of Drummond US 20060269427 as evidenced by Calculate Change in Fluid Velocity & Pressure in a Tapering Pipe | Bernoulli's Law, by Integral Physics on youtube.com, published 2022 as further evidenced by PRESSURE LOSSES RESULTING FROM CHANGES IN CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA IN AIR DUCTS, BY KRATZ ET AL., published 1938.
Fukami discloses:
1. An exhaust passage structure, comprising: a pressure chamber (53, 54) to which an inflow passage 52 and an outflow passage 62 are opened, a pressurized fluid flowing into the inflow passage, the fluid flowing out of the outflow passage; a diaphragm 36 arranged in the pressure chamber, the diaphragm being configured to separate the pressure chamber into an upstream fluid 53 chamber to which the inflow passage 52 is opened and a downstream fluid chamber 54 to which the outflow passage 62 is opened; a check valve 73 configured to flow the fluid from the upstream fluid chamber to the downstream fluid chamber; a first exhaust passage 66 provided between the upstream fluid chamber and an exterior of the pressure chamber, the first exhaust passage having a passage cross-sectional area smaller than a passage cross-sectional area of the outflow passage (see e.g. Fig 2), and the first exhaust passage being configured to discharge the fluid from the upstream fluid chamber to the exterior of the pressure chamber (see e.g. Fig 2); and a second exhaust passage 63 provided between the downstream fluid chamber and the exterior of the pressure chamber, the second exhaust passage being configured to discharge the fluid from the downstream fluid chamber to the exterior of the pressure chamber (see e.g. Fig 2), wherein an inner surface of a wall forming the downstream fluid chamber includes a valve seat 85 to which the second exhaust passage is opened, the diaphragm includes a valve body 82 configured to be seated on the valve seat to close the second exhaust passage, the valve seat and the diaphragm constitute a differential pressure valve configured to close the second exhaust passage when a pressure in the upstream fluid chamber is higher than a pressure in the downstream fluid chamber, and to open the second exhaust passage when the pressure in the upstream fluid chamber is less than or equal to the pressure in the downstream fluid chamber (see e.g. Fig 2), the second exhaust passage includes a downstream portion (upper portion of 63) including a first opening opened to the exterior of the pressure chamber and an upstream portion (lower portion of 63) including a second opening opened to the valve seat (see e.g. Fig 2).
Fukami does not disclose the upstream portion has a passage cross-sectional area larger than a passage cross-sectional area of the downstream portion.
However, Drummond discloses the upstream portion has a passage cross-sectional area larger than a passage cross-sectional area of the downstream portion (see e.g. annotated Fig 1C herein).
A simple substitution of one known exhaust passage design (the exhaust passage design of Drummond) for another (the exhaust passage design of Fukami) with the predictable result exhausting fluid from a diaphragm pump has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art has only three potions: the upstream portion has a passage cross-sectional area larger, small, or the same as the passage cross-sectional area of the downstream portion. Given these are the only three options for a person of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (three options as detailed above), with a reasonable expectation of success (all three options are known; see Kratz in Fig 14 and associated description and Fukami at 63 in Fig 2) and all three options result in a flow having an identifiable static pressure/fluid velocity characteristics as evidenced by Kratz in Fig .
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an exhaust passage design of Drummond in the system of Fukami to gain the benefit of using a known exhaust passage design for diaphragm pumps and/or setting a desired fluid velocity/static pressure at the outlet of the exhaust passage as evidenced by Integral Physics (see below) and/or to reduce pressure loss entering and leaving the exhaust passage using the addition of a tapered section to gradually decrease the exhaust passage size from an initial to a to the final outlet diameter as evidenced by Kratz in Fig 29-30, and (12) through (14) on pages 55-56.
Regarding the limitations “the second exhaust passage includes a structure configured to delay a timing at which the differential pressure valve starts to open the second exhaust passage after an inflow of the pressurized fluid stops”, if the intended scope of the claim is that the differential pressure valve does not open at the instant the inflow of the pressurized fluid stops (i.e. a delay in timing measured from the point the pressurized fluid stops), the structure of Fukami as modified by Drummond is the same as the structure claimed in claim 1 and therefore would be “configured to” provide the same functionality as claimed in claim 1. See MPEP 2112.01: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. Therefore, Fukami as modified above meets the limitations of the apparatus claimed claim.
On the other hand, it appears the intended scope of the claim could possibly be referring to a size (e.g. diameter) of a portion of a claimed passage possibly with respect to some theoretical undefined structure possibly with some other theoretical undefined passage. Therefore, whatever the diameter of Drummond or Fukami, that size/diameter is larger than a lesser size/diameter of some theoretical undefined other structure. Therefore, the second exhaust passage of Fukami as modified above inherently includes a structure “configured to” [i.e. capable of] delay a timing at which the differential pressure valve starts to open the second exhaust passage after an inflow of the pressurized fluid stops because the structure of Fukami as modified above inherently provides the claimed delay in reference to other possible undefined theoretical structures which would provide e.g. a timing that would be “configured to” provide less delay.
With either interpretation of the intended scope of the claim, Fukami as modified above meets the limitations of the apparatus claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1420
1468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fukami as modified above discloses (all references to Fukami unless noted otherwise):
2. The exhaust passage structure according to claim 1, wherein the passage cross-sectional area of the downstream portion of the second exhaust passage is constant, and the passage cross-sectional area of the upstream portion of the second exhaust passage is constant (see e.g. annotated Fig 1C for Claims 1-3 of Drummond above).
3. The exhaust passage structure according to claim 2, wherein the second exhaust passage further includes a boundary portion between the downstream portion and the upstream portion, and the boundary portion is formed in a tapered shape such that a passage cross-sectional area gradually decreases from the upstream portion to the downstream portion (see e.g. annotated Fig 1C for Claims 1-3 of Drummond above).
4. The exhaust passage structure according to claim 1, wherein the second exhaust passage further includes a boundary portion between the downstream portion and the upstream portion (see annotated Fig 1C of Drummond for Figs 1 and 4 below), and a length from the first opening to the boundary portion is shorter than a length from the second opening to the boundary portion in a direction in which the fluid flows (The term portion has no particular length. The examiner reads the downstream portion as a portion which is smaller in length than the upstream portion as indicated in annotated Fig 1C of Drummond for claims 1 and 4 below with the lines with arrows at their ends).
PNG
media_image3.png
657
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
5. A diaphragm pump, comprising: the exhaust passage structure according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above); a pump diaphragm 31 including a cup-shaped pump portion 32; a pump chamber 34 formed by the pump portion and a plate 35 covering an opening portion of the pump portion (see e.g. Fig 2); a driving device 18 connected to a bottom of the pump portion, the driving device being configured to transform rotation into reciprocating motion to increase and decrease volume of the pump chamber; a motor 2 configured to apply a rotational force to the driving device; a suction passage 44 including a first end connected to the pump chamber 34 and a second end connected to a fluid inlet 46 opened to an exterior of the diaphragm pump (see e.g. Fig 2); a suction valve 41 configured to open and close the suction passage such that fluid flows from the fluid inlet toward the pump chamber in a stroke in which the volume of the pump chamber increases (see e.g. Fig 2); a discharge passage (51, 50, 49, 39) including a first end connected to the pump chamber and a second end connected to the inflow passage (see e.g. Fig 2); and a discharge valve 42 configured to open and close the discharge passage such that fluid flows from the pump chamber toward the inflow passage in a stroke in which the volume of the pump chamber decreases (see e.g. Fig 2).
6. The diaphragm pump according to claim 5, wherein as a result of the differential pressure valve being closed due to a pressure caused by the fluid flowing through the discharge valve into the inflow passage, the fluid is supplied from the downstream fluid chamber to an object-to-be-pressurized through the outflow passage, and as a result of the differential pressure valve being opened due to the pressure in the upstream fluid chamber being reduced while the driving device is stopped, the fluid in the downstream fluid chamber is discharged through the second exhaust passage (see e.g. Fig 2 which has the same structure as applicant’s disclosed invention and operates in the same manner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed to the pending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As detailed in the rejections above, Fukami as modified above discloses the limitations of the claims. Additionally, as per the rejection under 35 USC 112b above, the claim amendments to claim 1 create indefiniteness in claim 1.
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 THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights