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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means”, “consisting of”, and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble reads “In a composite diaphragm…” This should be changed to “A composite diaphragm…” to clarify that the diaphragm is what is being claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is missing the relevant parent claim number, for the purpose of examination the examiner has treated the claim as though it depends from claim 1.
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 7, 12, and their dependents 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 12 recites “Use of the composite diaphragm according to claim 1 in a diaphragm pump”. It is not clear if this language intends to claim a process or just provide an intended use for the apparatus.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cover layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1518656 (herein Giardini).
Giardini teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a composite diaphragm for a diaphragm pump (see FIG. 7-10 for example; paragraph 2), diaphragm being formed of a flexible membrane (7) with an outer edge, an inner part and a flexible membrane portion connecting the outer edge to the inner part (see FIG. 9 as annotated below, this arrangement is true for FIG. 7-8 and 10 as well), the improvement wherein: the flexible membrane (7) is formed at least partially from an ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene (paragraph 34) and another layer (8) is formed from an elastomer selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, ethylene-propylene-diene rubber, chloroprene rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, fluororubber, silicone rubber and fluorosilicone rubber (Giardini teaches a second layer formed of thermoplastic elastomers, see “santoprene”, but does not teach one of the above listed elastomers as a preferred material; However, paragraph 9, describing the background art, teaches Neoprene or Viton (trade names for chloroprene and fluororubber respectively) as known alternative materials interchangeable with thermal elastomers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of composite diaphragms at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known elastomer, such as neoprene/viton/santoprene, for another in order to reach an expected result; in this case a reinforced diaphragm capable of both flexibility and chemical resistance; the examiner notes that the applicant’s disclosure does not provide any particular criticality for the listed materials);
PNG
media_image1.png
174
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
limitations from claim 2, wherein the membrane has at least one face formed entirely from the ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene (7; see FIG. 8-9; paragraph 32);
limitations from claim 3, wherein the membrane is a laminate (see FIG. 8 having layers 7, 8, 10; paragraphs 50-57 teaching a process of joining the layers);
limitations from claim 4, wherein the membrane has a cover layer (10) of the ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene and the other layer (see FIG. 8; layer 10 above layer 7 and 8);
limitations from claim 5, wherein the cover layer (10) directly abuts the other layer (see FIG. 8);
limitations from claim 7, wherein the cover layer is on or embedded in the other layer (see FIG. 8; paragraphs 73-74);
limitations from claim 8, wherein the cover layer has a thickness of between 0.15 and 1.5 mm (see FIG. 8; and paragraphs 68-70 in which layers 7-8 are on the order of hundredths, tenths, and higher millimeter lengths; while the cover layer thickness is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to choose a thickness in the claimed range based on the disclosed dimensions of paragraphs 68-70, and paragraphs 71, 95 in which teach varying thickness based on optimal function during a particular use);
limitations from claim 9, wherein the thickness is between 0.2 and 1.2 mm (see FIG. 8; and paragraphs 68-70 in which layers 7-8 are on the order of hundredths, tenths, and higher millimeter lengths; while the cover layer thickness is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to choose a thickness in the claimed range based on the disclosed dimensions of paragraphs 68-70, and paragraphs 71, 95 in which teach varying thickness based on optimal function during a particular use);
limitations from claim 10, wherein the flexible membrane portion is formed with a plurality of ridges see annotated FIG. 8 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
236
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
limitations from claim 11, wherein the inner part forms a chamber adapted to hold an insert (see FIG. 9, in which element 12 is positioned within a chamber of the diaphragm layers);
limitations from claim 12, use of the composite diaphragm according to claim 1 in a diaphragm pump (paragraph 2);
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al (US Patent No. 6,230,609) in view of EP 1518656 (herein Giardini).
Bender teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a composite diaphragm (110; FIG. 10) for a diaphragm pump (10; C. 4 Lines 36-39), the diaphragm being formed of a flexible membrane with an outer edge, an inner part and a flexible membrane portion connecting the outer edge to the inner part (see annotated FIG. 10 below), the improvement wherein: the flexible membrane is formed at least partially from PTFE (layer 12; C. 4 Lines 36-38), and another layer is formed from an elastomer (14; C. 4 Lines 51-54) including a thermoplastic such as EPDM (ethylene-propylene-diene rubber);
PNG
media_image3.png
280
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bender does not teach the PTFE layer as UHMWPE.
Giardini teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a composite diaphragm for a diaphragm pump (see FIG. 7-10 for example; paragraph 2), diaphragm being formed of a flexible membrane (7), and wherein the flexible membrane (7) is formed at least partially from an ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene (paragraph 34) and another elastomeric layer (8; paragraph 9, 51);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known diaphragm material for another, such as the UHMWPE taught by Giardini, for the standard PTFE of Bender in order to reach an expected result (in this case a flexible but corrosive resistant pumping diaphragm). Further, Giardini teaches that UHMWPE has particularly good resistances, and low-friction coefficients resulting in good fluid control (paragraphs 41-43 of Giardini).
Bender further teaches:
limitations from claim 3, wherein the membrane is a laminate (C. 4 Lines 51-54);
Regarding claim 4:
Bender does not teach a cover layer;
However, Giardini teaches
limitations from claim 4, wherein the membrane has a cover layer (10) of the ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene and the other layer (see FIG. 8; layer 10 above layer 7 and 8);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a cover layer of UHMWPE on the membrane of Bender, as taught by Giardini, in order to provide additional strength and corrosive resistance to the membrane.
Bender further teaches:
limitations from claim 6, wherein the cover layer abuts the other via an adhesion-promoting layer (see C. 8 Lines 34-44);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6746637 teaches adhesively bonding multiple polymer layers of a diaphragm;
US 6458446 teaches a layered diaphragm using materials such as polymers and UHMWPE;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746