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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/30/2026 has been entered. All previous 112 rejections and objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gardos (US 7,225,946).
Claim 1: Gardos (Fig. 1) discloses a material supply system comprising a tank (note one of 15/16) having an accommodation space and a discharge port (note port near 19); a piston plate (note plate portion of 28/29) disposed in the accommodation space and displaceable between a first position and a second position when actuated (Fig. 1), the piston plate and the discharge port defining a liquid chamber therebetween (Fig. 1); a pushing module (7/8) that, when driven, actuates the piston plate; a pressure (13/14) sensor configured to detect a pressure sensing value of a liquid material within the liquid chamber (Fig. 1; claim 5); and a controller (1) configured to drive the pushing module based on the pressure sensing value during a supply procedure to maintain the pressure sensing value at a predetermined pressure threshold (Fig. 1; claim 5, Abstract).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946).
Claim 1: He discloses a material supply system (Figs. 1-2) comprising a tank (130) having an accommodation space (131) and a discharge port (note port around 170); a piston plate (note flange plate portion of 193) disposed in the accommodation space and displaceable between a first position and a second position when actuated (see Figs. 1-2), the piston plate and the discharge port defining a liquid chamber therebetween (Figs. 1-2); a pushing module (1951/1952/1953/1954/191) that, when driven, actuates the piston plate; and a controller (630) configured to drive the pushing module during a supply procedure (Figs. 1-2).
He is not explicit about a pressure sensor configured to detect a pressure sensing value of the liquid chamber such that an associated controller maintain the pressure sensing value of a liquid material within the liquid chamber at a predetermined pressure threshold during a supply procedure. However, Gardos teaches a linear pumping arrangement (Fig. 1) which utilizes a pressure sensor (13/14) configured to detect a pressure sensing value of a liquid material within a liquid chamber (15/16) such that an associated controller (1) maintain the pressure sensing value at a predetermined pressure threshold during a supply procedure (Fig. 1; claim 5, Abstract). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the pressure sensor arrangement of Shanks into the apparatus of He in order to maintain a constant delivery output.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and in further view of Biederstadt (US 5,947,702).
Claim 2: He and Gardos teach the previous limitations. He is not explicit about a replenishment level sensor configured to issue a replenishment signal when the piston plate is at the second position, wherein the controller, during the supply procedure and upon receiving the replenishment signal, closes the discharge port. However, Biederstadt teaches a linear fluid pump utilizing a control setup (Fig. 5) which uses a replenishment level sensor (viewed as one of the position sensors 58/60 or 58’/60’) configured to issue a replenishment signal when the associated piston is at the second position (see col. 6, lines 62 through col. 7, lines 1-3, Examiner viewing the replenishment signal broadly as merely a limit signal when the piston has extended to its furthest extent and must transition to its opposite, replenishment motion), wherein a controller (see Fig. 5), during the supply procedure and upon receiving the replenishment signal, closes the discharge port (see col. 8, lines 55-65, col. 9, lines 18-28, and col. 9, lines 62 though col. 10, lines 1-5). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the control/valve arrangement of Biederstadt into the apparatus of He to have precise control over flow rate and pressure as well as the flexibility to adjust the opening/closing timing of the valves. The automatic control can also minimize pressure drop and turbulence, enhancing overall system efficiency.
Claim 3: He and Gardos teach the maintaining the pressure sensing value at the predetermined pressure threshold previous limitations. Shanks (refer to discussion in claim 1) further teaches maintaining the pressure sensing value at a predetermined pressure threshold and He further discloses that the tank further comprises an inlet port communicating with the liquid chamber (note port around 110 in Fig. 1). He is not explicit about a supply level sensor configured to issue a supply signal when the piston plate is at the first position; the controller is configured to close the discharge port, open the inlet port, and drive the pushing module to actuate the piston plate to move toward the first position during a replenishment procedure; and the controller, upon receiving the supply signal, closes the inlet port and drives the pushing module to maintain the pressure sensing value at the predetermined pressure threshold. However, Biederstadt teaches a linear fluid pump utilizing a control setup (Fig. 5) which uses a supply level sensor (viewed as one of the position sensors 58/60 or 58’/60’) configured to issue a supply signal when the associated piston is at the first position (see col. 6, lines 62 through col. 7, lines 1-3, Examiner viewing the supply signal broadly as merely a limit signal when the piston has retracted to its furthest extent and must transition to its opposite, supply motion); the controller (Fig. 5) is configured to close the discharge port, open the inlet port, and drive the pushing module to actuate the piston to move toward the first position during a replenishment procedure (see col. 8, lines 55-65, col. 9, lines 18-28, and col. 9, lines 62 though col. 10, lines 1-5); and the controller, upon receiving the supply signal, closes the inlet port and drives the pushing module (see col. 8, lines 55-65, col. 9, lines 18-28, and col. 9, lines 62 though col. 10, lines 1-5). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the control/valve arrangement of Biederstadt into the apparatus of He to have precise control over flow rate and pressure as well as the flexibility to adjust the opening/closing timing of the valves. The automatic control can also minimize pressure drop and turbulence, enhancing overall system efficiency.
Claim 8: He, Gardos and Biederstadt teach the previous limitations. Gardos further teaches for an associated controller (1) to be configured to drive the motor assembly during the supply procedure and the replenishment procedure (Fig. 1). He further discloses that the pushing module further comprises a linkage assembly (191/191a) pivoted in the tank and connected to the piston plate, configured to move the piston plate between the first position and the second position (Figs. 1-2); and a motor assembly (1951) connected to the linkage assembly, wherein the motor assembly, when driven, causes the linkage assembly to generate a rotational motion (Figs. 1-2).
Claim 9: He, Gardos and Biederstadt teach the previous limitations. He further discloses that the pushing module further comprises a reduction assembly having an input end (1952) and an output end (1953), the linkage assembly being pivotally connected to the output end (Figs. 1-2), and the motor assembly being connected to the input end (Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and Biederstadt (US 5,947,702) and in further view of Smith (US20120078182A1).
Claim 10: He, Gardos and Biederstadt teach the previous limitations. He further discloses that the linkage assembly comprises a lead screw (191/191a) pivoted in the tank, the lead screw having a fixed section (191a) and a linkage section (191), the output end of the reduction assembly engaging with the fixed section (Figs. 1-2) wherein the motor assembly drives the lead screw to rotate to move the piston plate (Figs. 1-2). He is not explicit about a shaft sleeve, one end pivotally connected to the linkage section and the other end connected to the piston plate. However, Smith (Fig. 23) teaches using a shaft sleeve (250), one end pivotally connected to a linkage section (360) and the other end connected to the piston plate (106). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a shaft sleeve arrangement of Smith into the apparatus of He in order to provide an additional support towards keeping the piston plate axially aligned within the cylinder, reducing the frictional effects of misalignment.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and Biederstadt (US 5,947,702) and in further view of Smith (US20120078182A1) as evidenced by Servin (US20100111721A1).
Claim 11: He, Gardos, Biederstadt and Smith teach the previous limitations. Modified He further discloses that the lead screw comprises a threaded portion (19) and the shaft sleeve is movable along the threaded portion but is not explicit about the pitch of the threaded portion being substantially equal to 0.5 millimeters. However, a pitch must surely be present with He and evidence exists that suitable pitch for pump threaded portions are substantially equal to 0.5 millimeters as evidenced by Servin (see paragraph 51).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and Biederstadt (US 5,947,702) and in further view of Smith (US20120078182A1) and Rammer (US 4,278,408).
Claim 12: He, Gardos, Biederstadt and Smith teach the previous limitations. He is not explicit about at least one of the piston plate, the lead screw, or the shaft sleeve is made of heat-treated steel. However, Rammer teaches a pump whose piston plate (30) is made from heat-treated steel to reduce wear (see col. 3, lines 5-7). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a piston material arrangement of Rammer into the apparatus of He in order to reduce wear.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and Biederstadt (US 5,947,702) and in further view of Stute (DE102007042566A1).
Claim 13: He, Gardos and Biederstadt teach the previous limitations. He is not explicit about the reduction assembly being a planetary gear assembly with an internal gear ratio of 1:20. However, Stute teaches a liquid actuator with a plunger/piston and whose motor/spindle arrangement utilizes a planetary gear assembly with an internal gear ratio of 1:20 (note English Translation, under Description, pages 1-2, “in the stepper motor 9 integrated…a planetary gear is arranged” and “a planetary gear which with a translation greater than 10:1). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to substitute a planetary gear of Stute for that in He as it can be made very compact and provides smooth and quiet operation.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and Biederstadt (US 5,947,702) and Stute (DE102007042566A1) as further evidenced by Kishimoto (WO2021193595A1).
Claim 14: He, Gardos, Biederstadt and Stute teach the previous limitations. Modified He will have specific gear tolerancing in place but is not explicit about the planetary gear assembly and the lead screw of the linkage assembly having a gear backlash of less than 10 micrometers (pm); however, it is evidenced that such tolerances are possible for high precision output, as evidenced by Kishimoto (see English Translation, description, “the distance between…one adjacent gear…and the tooth bottom of the other gear can be easily adjusted to a level of several microns and a minimum backlash can be easily realized” and “Specific examples of the gear mechanisms…are not particularly limited…a planetary gear type…may be used”).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and in further view of Jansson (US20230390470A1).
Claim 15: He and Gardos teach the previous limitations. Modified He is not explicit about the predetermined pressure threshold includes a replenishment pressure range, and the pressure sensing value is maintained within the replenishment pressure range when the piston plate moves from the second position to the first position. However, Jansson teaches a PD pump (note piston arrangement in paragraph 20) whose predetermined pressure threshold includes a replenishment pressure range (see paragraph 178, note negative pressure range of -1 to -3 psi), and the pressure sensing value is maintained within the replenishment pressure range when the piston plate moves from the second position to the first position (paragraph 20, “the PD fluid pump is controllable to pump…within a pressure limit by controlling a level of current to, or the speed of, the PD fluid pump”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a supply pressure range as taught by Feldstein into the modified apparatus of He as such a range could be in place to clearly demarcate overpressure situations while excusing some fluctuation in pressure.
Claim 16: He, Gardos and Jansson teach the previous limitations. Jansson further teaches that the replenishment pressure range is from -10 kilopascals (KPa) to 100 kilopascals (see paragraph 20, note -1 to -3 psi).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and in further view of Feldstein (US20140326665A1).
Claim 17: He and Gardos teach the previous limitations. Gardos further teaches that the pressure measurement value of the pushing module is maintained when the pushing module moves from the second position to the first position (see col. 1, lines 61-64) but is not explicit about the predetermined pressure threshold including a supply pressure range. However, Feldstein teaches a plunger pump arrangement (see paragraph 8) which maintains a predetermined pressure threshold including a supply pressure range (see paragraph 94, note 3-5 psi range). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a supply pressure range as taught by Feldstein into the modified apparatus of He as such a range could be in place to clearly demarcate overpressure situations while excusing some fluctuation in pressure.
Claim 18: He, Gardos and Feldstein teach the previous limitations. Feldstein further discloses that the supply pressure range is from -10 kilopascals (KPa) to 10 kilopascals (see paragraph 94).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN106762509A) in view of Gardos (US 7,225,946) and in further view of Grenon (US 9,897,081).
Claim 19: He and Gardos teach the previous limitations. Modified He is not explicit about at least one of the tank or the piston plate is coated with an anti-corrosion layer being either a Teflon coating or a hard Teflon coating. However, Grenon teaches a pump arrangement whose tank/cylinder is coated with a Teflon coating (see col. 4, lines 50-53). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a Teflon coating as taught by Grenon into the apparatus of He in order to improve tribological properties and improve energy efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination the tank further comprises an exhaust port communicating with the inlet port and an exhaust sensor located at the exhaust port configured to issue an exhaust signal when triggered such that the controller is configured to open the inlet port and the exhaust port and close the discharge port during an exhaust procedure, and upon receiving the exhaust signal, the controller closes the inlet port and the exhaust port.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has introduced the Gardos reference to read upon the new claim limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
