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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “60” has been used to designate both the insertion hole and the fitting recess in at least Figure 6, and because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 60a. It is assumed that in Fig. 6, reference numeral 60 that is between 58a and 60a, should be 52, and that reference numeral 60a should be 52a. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings contain reference numerals not in the specification, as detailed above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the driving mechanism section in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In paragraph [0004] of the specification as filed, “a crank mechanism or an electromagnetic reciprocating mechanism” are provided as examples of a driving mechanism.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 2014/0023533 to Ishii in view of U. S. Patent 2014/0271274to Ishii.
Referring to claim 1, Ishii ‘533 teaches a diaphragm pump comprising:
a pump casing (4, 5) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0018]-[0022]);
a driving mechanism section (1) attached to the pump casing (4, 5) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraph [0018]);
a diaphragm (2) having an outer peripheral portion and an inner peripheral portion, the outer peripheral portion coupled to the pump casing (4, 5) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0018]-[0022]);
a center plate connected to the driving mechanism section (1) and retaining the inner peripheral portion of the diaphragm (2), the center plate having a first retaining member (22) having a fitting recess, and a second retaining member (21) having a fitting projection fit into the fitting recess, the center plate being configured to clamp the inner peripheral portion of the diaphragm (2) between the first retaining member (22) and the second retaining member (21), and the center plate having an insertion hole extending through the fitting recess and the fitting projection; and a securing member installed through the insertion hole to secure the diaphragm (2) to the driving mechanism section (1) through the center plate, wherein an inner diameter of the fitting recess and an outer diameter of the fitting projection are larger than the insertion hole (Figures 1 and 2, Fig. 1 annotated below; paragraphs [0018]-[0022]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Securing Member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Insertion Hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fitting Projection)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fitting Recess)]
PNG
media_image1.png
473
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ishii ‘533 Figure 1.
Ishii ‘533 is silent as to how the fitting projection is fit into the fitting recess. Ishii ‘274 teaches a pump wherein a fitting projection (25) is press-fit into a fitting recess (20) (Figures 1-6; paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the pump taught by Ishii ‘533 with the press-fit taught by Ishii ‘274 in order to secure the retaining members and diaphragm together without a fastener, allowing for subsequent attachment to the driving mechanism as a single assembly.
Claims 2-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 2014/0023533 to Ishii in view of U. S. Patent 2014/0271274 to Ishii and Japanese Patent Publication JP2011225142 to NTN.
All citations to NTN refer to the English language translation provided by the Applicant.
Referring to claim 2, Ishii ‘533 and Ishii ‘274 teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but are silent as to the shape of the fit between the first and second retaining members (other than the single cross sections shown in the Figures), and so do not teach first and second retaining members fit together with an accommodating space therebetween. NTN teaches a center plate wherein:
a portion of an outer peripheral surface of a fitting projection (11) engages an inner peripheral surface of a fitting recess (in 1) so that an accommodating space (35) is formed between the inner peripheral surface of the fitting recess (in 1) and the outer peripheral surface of the fitting projection (11) (Figures 1, 2a and 2b, Figure 2b annotated below; paragraphs [0059] and [0060]).
[AltContent: textbox (Radially Outward Projecting Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hollow Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fitting Projection)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fitting Recess)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Accommodation Space)]
PNG
media_image2.png
341
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of NTN Fig 2a.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the pump taught by Ishii ‘533 with the accommodating space taught by NTN in order to provide space for thermal expansion, and since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the fit of NTN, for another, the non-disclosed fit of Ishii, to obtain predictable results, joining the first and second retaining members, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 3, Ishii ‘533 Ishii ‘274 and NTN teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but are silent as to the shape of the fit between the first and second retaining members (other than the single cross sections shown in the Figures), and so do not teach first and second retaining members fit together with an accommodating space therebetween. NTN teaches a center plate wherein:
the fitting projection (11) has a radially inwardly hollow portion (39a) such that the accommodating space (35) is formed by the hollow portion (Figures 1, 2a and 2b, Figure 2b annotated above; paragraphs [0059] and [0060]).
Referring to claim 4, Ishii ‘533 Ishii ‘274 and NTN teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but are silent as to the shape of the fit between the first and second retaining members (other than the single cross sections shown in the Figures), and so do not teach first and second retaining members fit together with an accommodating space therebetween. NTN teaches a center plate wherein:
the fitting projection has a plurality of the hollow portions equally spaced in a circumferential direction (Figures 1, 2a and 2b, Figure 2b annotated above; paragraphs [0059] and [0060]).
Referring to claim 5, Ishii ‘533 Ishii ‘274 and NTN teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 4, as detailed above, but are silent as to the shape of the fit between the first and second retaining members (other than the single cross sections shown in the Figures), and so do not teach first and second retaining members fit together with an accommodating space therebetween. NTN teaches a center plate wherein:
the plurality of the hollow portions (on 11) form a plurality of radially outwardly projecting portions (on 11), and outer peripheral surfaces of the plurality of projecting portions (on 11) are configured to engage the inner peripheral surface of the fitting recess (in 1) (Figures 1, 2a and 2b, Figure 2b annotated above; paragraphs [0059] and [0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Collamore and Mikiya teach similar pumps as the claimed pump.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746