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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 (Figs 7-13), Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 Line 10 currently states:
“wherein pump assembly is configured to output an airflow at a free flow rate between 3-6”.
Should be changed to state:
--wherein the pump assembly is configured to output an airflow at a free flow rate between 3-6--.
Claim 18 Line 1-2 currently states in part:
“an airflow generated by the pneumatic pump is routed to”.
Should be changed to state:
--[[an]] the airflow generated by the pneumatic pump is routed to--.
this change is made since the same airflow is being claimed as recited in Line 6-7 of Claim 15.
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.
Claims 11-14 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.
Regarding Claim 11: Line 2 states: “output an airflow at a free flow rate between 3-6 liters per minute.”.
Regarding Claim 13: Line 10-11 states in part: “output an airflow at a free flow rate between 3-6 liters per minute”.
It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear if the airflow recited in the cited portions of claims 11/13 is the same airflow as the airflow generated by the pneumatic pump as recited in the independent claims (Claim 1 Line 6-7/ Claim 13 Line 6-7) or if it is a different airflow? Accordingly, the scope of the claims are unclear. However, when looking to the SPEC, Page 16 ¶0070 indicates that the free flow rate being claimed is a flow rate that the pump could achieve if there were no bladders connected to it. Accordingly for the purpose of examination, the limitation “an airflow” recited in the portions of claims 11 & 13 reproduced above will be read as being a different airflow than the airflow recited in the corresponding independent claim (Claim 1 Line 6-7/ Claim 13 Line 6-7).
Regarding Claim 12: Line 1-2 states: “wherein the pump assembly is operable at a maximum loudness between 1.1 sones and 1.2 sones.”.
Regarding Claim 13: Line 12-13 states: “wherein the pump assembly is operable at a maximum loudness between 1.1 sones and 1.2 sones”.
Additionally, the word sones is defined as: a subjective unit of loudness equal to that experienced by a normal person hearing a 1 kHz tone at 40 dB.
Accordingly, the scope of claims 12 & 13 is unclear because the term “sones” in claims 12 & 13 is a subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. Furthermore, the specification does not provide any objective boundaries that can be used to determine what the maximum loudness generated by the pump assembly. This is because the units of sones are by definition subjective. Thus with no defined objective way to determine the maximum loudness generated by the pump assembly, the subjective language of “a maximum loudness between 1.1 sones and 1.2 sones” is therefore indefinite. See, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 - 72, 112USPQ2d 1188, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (observing that although there is no absolute or mathematical precision required, "[t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art"). See MPEP 2173.05 IV.
Finally; depending claim(s) inherit deficiencies from the parent claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN 116877378. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of CN 116877378, submitted with this office action, is referenced hereinafter.
PNG
media_image1.png
990
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of CN 116877378 (Attached Figure A)
Regarding Claim 1: CN 116877378 discloses the limitations: A pump assembly (the pump assembly is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
a housing (1,9,10,17, see Annotated Fig. 1 of CN 116877378 (Attached Figure A) above) including a plurality of outlet ports (Attached Figure A; it is noted that the inflation ports of the electromagnetic valves 2 would inherently deliver air through the identified outlet ports in order to inflate the air bag connected to the valve, Figs 1-5, Line 127-133);
a motor (18, Line 168-176, Attached Figure A) extending along a longitudinal axis (Attached Figure A);
a pneumatic pump (i.e. diaphragm pump shown in the Figures, Line 206-207) driven by the motor (Line 209-222);
a valve assembly (the valve assembly is defined by the sum of its parts and includes the three electromagnetic valves 2 illustrated in Fig 2) downstream of the pneumatic pump (Line 173-176, Line 185-192) and in fluid communication with the plurality of outlet ports (the valve assembly would inherently be in fluid communication with the plurality of output ports in order to deliver the air to inflate the air bag as desired – Line 185-197), the valve assembly configured to selectively direct an airflow generated by the pneumatic pump to the plurality of outlet ports (control of the electromagnetic valves 2 by the circuit board 3 (Line 317-327, Line 173-208) – causes airflow generated by the diaphragm 13 of the pump to be selectively directed to the outlet ports as claimed);
a printed circuit board (3, Line 317-327) supported by the housing (Line 111-113, Line 317-327 – the circuit board is set/held in position/supported by element 1 of the housing) and electrically connected to the motor and the valve assembly (Line 317-327),
wherein the printed circuit board extends parallel to the longitudinal axis (as understood from Attached Figure A & Fig 3, the printed circuit board 3 extends parallel to the identified longitudinal axis).
Regarding Claim 2: CN 116877378 discloses the limitations: wherein the plurality of outlet ports includes at least three outlet ports (Attached Figure A), and wherein the valve assembly includes at least three valves (as explained above and seen in Fig 2, the valve assembly includes three electromagnetic valves 2).
Regarding Claim 9: CN 116877378 discloses the limitations: wherein the valve assembly includes a plurality of control valves (plurality of control valves = three electromagnetic valves 2 illustrated in Fig 2) oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis (as understood from Attached Figure A & Fig 2 – the movable iron core 20 in each one of the electromagnetic valves 2 is oriented parallel to the articulated longitudinal axis).
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.
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116877378 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pascual USPN 8449267.
Regarding Claim 10: CN 116877378 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, CN 116877378 discloses: wherein the pneumatic pump includes a diaphragm assembly (13, Line 209-222) having chambers (i.e. four chambers which are defined between the diaphragm 13 and air guide plate 12 – as understood from Figs 2-3) that are sequentially expanded and compressed in response to the motor being activated (given that the air pump is a wobble diaphragm type pump, each of the chambers would inherently be sequentially expanded and compressed due to the operation of the motor, given the manner in which wobble pumps are known to operate). CN 116877378 is silent regarding the limitations: a diaphragm assembly having five chambers. The prior art of Pascual USPN 8449267 which is directed to a wobble diaphragm pump (abstract) like CN 116877378, is noted.
However Pascual USPN 8449267 does disclose the limitations: the pump (e.g. the pump described throughout the disclosure of Pascua, Column 2 Line 51-67l) includes a diaphragm assembly 12 having five chambers (Fig 1, Column 2 Line 51-58) that are sequentially expanded and compressed in response to the motor being activated (Column 1 Line 5-22, Column 5 Line 3-13).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reconfigure the four chamber wobble diaphragm pump of CN 116877378 to use the five chamber wobble pump structure (Figs 1-4) of Pascual USPN 8449267, with spring 28 positioned between the wobble plate (CN ‘378 – charging bracket 15, Line 209-222, Fig 3 | Pascual – wobble plate 16, Fig 1, Fig 4, Column 3 Line 25-39) and the lower housing (CN ‘378 – air cavity support 14, Line 209-222, Fig 3 | Pascual – lower housing 14) so as to absorb shocks, dampen pulsation, reduce noise, improve efficiency, and/or keep the drive and diaphragm assembly aligned properly –Pascual USPN 8449267 (Column 3 Line 25-54).
Regarding Claim 11: CN 116877378 as modified by Pascual USPN 8449267 does disclose the limitations: wherein the pump assembly is configured to output an airflow at a free flow rate (the pump of CN ‘378 as modified by Pascual ‘267 would inherently be able to output an airflow at a free flow rate (e.g. output a volumetric flow rate of air when not connected to an airbag/bladder) – just like the pump of the instant application is able to pump air at a free flow rate when not connected to bladders – as disclosed in the SPEC of the instant application (Page 16 ¶0070)).
Additionally Regarding Claim 11: CN 116877378 as modified by Pascual USPN 8449267 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “(the free flow rate is) between 3-6 liters per minute”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the pump assembly such that it is configured to output an airflow at a free flow rate between 3-6 liters per minute--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the free flow rate being between 3-6 liters per minute. Additionally, it appears that the pumping assembly of CN 116877378 as modified by Pascual USPN 8449267 would perform equally well with the free flow rate being between 3-6 liters per minute, given that the structure of the pump in the combination of CN 116877378 as modified by Pascual USPN 8449267 is substantially the same as the structure of the pump in the instant application; and the modification would not appear to adversely affect the operation of the prior art device. Additionally, it is noted that Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed free flow rate being between 3-6 liters per minute (see e.g. Page 16 ¶0070 in the specification filed on 07/18/2025, where no function or result is applied to the pump assembly having a free flow rate of between 3-6 liters per minute).
Regarding Claim 12: CN 116877378 as modified by Pascual USPN 8449267 does disclose the limitations: wherein the pump assembly is operable at a maximum loudness between 1.1 sones and 1.2 sones (It is noted that, the claims do not recite any particular structure beside what is claimed and made obvious by the prior art of CN 116877378 as modified by Pascual USPN 8449267 that would enable the pump assembly to be operable at a maximum loudness between 1.1 sones and 1.2 sones. Thus, because the structure of CN 116877378 as modified by Pascual USPN 8449267 makes obvious the claimed structure, it is reasonable to conclude that it will also meet the functional limitation).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116877378.
Regarding Claim 13: CN 116877378 discloses the limitations: A pump assembly (the pump assembly is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
a housing (1,9,10,17, see Annotated Fig. 1 of CN 116877378 (Attached Figure A) above) including a plurality of outlet ports (Attached Figure A; it is noted that the inflation ports of the electromagnetic valves 2 would inherently deliver air through the identified outlet ports in order to inflate the air bag connected to the valve, Figs 1-5, Line 127-133);
a motor (18, Line 168-176, Attached Figure A) extending along a longitudinal axis (Attached Figure A);
a pneumatic pump (i.e. diaphragm pump shown in the Figures, Line 206-207) driven by the motor (Line 209-222);
a valve assembly (the valve assembly is defined by the sum of its parts and includes the three electromagnetic valves 2 illustrated in Fig 2) downstream of the pneumatic pump (Line 173-176, Line 185-192) and in fluid communication with the plurality of outlet ports (the valve assembly would inherently be in fluid communication with the plurality of output ports in order to deliver the air to inflate the air bag as desired – Line 185-197), the valve assembly configured to selectively direct an airflow generated by the pneumatic pump to the plurality of outlet ports (control of the electromagnetic valves 2 by the circuit board 3 (Line 317-327, Line 173-208) – causes airflow generated by the diaphragm 13 of the pump to be selectively directed to the outlet ports as claimed);
a printed circuit board (3, Line 317-327) supported by the housing (Line 111-113, Line 317-327 – the circuit board is set/held in position/supported by element 1 of the housing) and electrically connected to the motor and the valve assembly (Line 317-327),
wherein the pump assembly is configured to output an airflow at a free flow rate (the pump of CN ‘378 would inherently be able to output an airflow at a free flow rate (e.g. output a volumetric flow rate of air when not connected to an airbag/bladder) – just like the pump of the instant application is able to pump air at a free flow rate when not connected to bladders – as disclosed in the SPEC of the instant application (Page 16 ¶0070)), and
wherein the pump assembly is operable at a maximum loudness between 1.1 sones and 1.2 sones (It is noted that, the claims do not recite any particular structure beside what is claimed and made obvious by the prior art of CN 116877378 that would enable the pump assembly to be operable at a maximum loudness between 1.1 sones and 1.2 sones. Thus, because the structure of CN 116877378 makes obvious the claimed structure, it is reasonable to conclude that it will also meet the functional limitation).
Additionally Regarding Claim 13: CN 116877378 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “(the free flow rate is) between 3-6 liters per minute”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the pump assembly such that it is configured to output an airflow at a free flow rate between 3-6 liters per minute--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the free flow rate being between 3-6 liters per minute. Additionally, it appears that the pumping assembly of CN 116877378 would perform equally well with the free flow rate being between 3-6 liters per minute, given that the structure of the pump in the combination of CN 116877378 is substantially the same as the structure of the pump in the instant application; and the modification would not appear to adversely affect the operation of the prior art device. Additionally, it is noted that Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed free flow rate being between 3-6 liters per minute (see e.g. Page 16 ¶0070 in the specification filed on 07/18/2025, where no function or result is applied to the pump assembly having a free flow rate of between 3-6 liters per minute).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116877378 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Pascual USPN 8449267.
Regarding Claim 14: CN 116877378 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 13. Additionally, CN 116877378 discloses: wherein the pneumatic pump includes a diaphragm assembly (13, Line 209-222) having chambers (i.e. four chambers which are defined between the diaphragm 13 and air guide plate 12 – as understood from Figs 2-3) that are sequentially expanded and compressed in response to the motor being activated (given that the air pump is a wobble diaphragm type pump, each of the chambers would inherently be sequentially expanded and compressed due to the operation of the motor, given the manner in which wobble pumps are known to operate). CN 116877378 is silent regarding the limitations: a diaphragm assembly having five chambers. The prior art of Pascual USPN 8449267 which is directed to a wobble diaphragm pump (abstract) like CN 116877378, is noted.
However Pascual USPN 8449267 does disclose the limitations: the pump (e.g. the pump described throughout the disclosure of Pascua, Column 2 Line 51-67l) includes a diaphragm assembly 12 having five chambers (Fig 1, Column 2 Line 51-58) that are sequentially expanded and compressed in response to the motor being activated (Column 1 Line 5-22, Column 5 Line 3-13).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reconfigure the four chamber wobble diaphragm pump of CN 116877378 to use the five chamber wobble pump structure (Figs 1-4) of Pascual USPN 8449267, with spring 28 positioned between the wobble plate (CN ‘378 – charging bracket 15, Line 209-222, Fig 3 | Pascual – wobble plate 16, Fig 1, Fig 4, Column 3 Line 25-39) and the lower housing (CN ‘378 – air cavity support 14, Line 209-222, Fig 3 | Pascual – lower housing 14) so as to absorb shocks, dampen pulsation, reduce noise, improve efficiency, and/or keep the drive and diaphragm assembly aligned properly –Pascual USPN 8449267 (Column 3 Line 25-54).
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116877378 in view of DE 10063478.
Regarding Claim 15: CN 116877378 discloses the limitations: A pump assembly (the pump assembly is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
a housing (1,9,10,17, see Annotated Fig. 1 of CN 116877378 (Attached Figure A) above) including a plurality of outlet ports (Attached Figure A; it is noted that the inflation ports of the electromagnetic valves 2 would inherently deliver air through the identified outlet ports in order to inflate the air bag connected to the valve, Figs 1-5, Line 127-133);
a motor (18, Line 168-176, Attached Figure A) extending along a longitudinal axis (Attached Figure A);
a pneumatic pump (i.e. diaphragm pump shown in the Figures, Line 206-207) driven by the motor (Line 209-222);
a valve assembly (the valve assembly is defined by the sum of its parts and includes the three electromagnetic valves 2 illustrated in Fig 2) downstream of the pneumatic pump (Line 173-176, Line 185-192) and in fluid communication with the plurality of outlet ports (the valve assembly would inherently be in fluid communication with the plurality of output ports in order to deliver the air to inflate the air bag as desired – Line 185-197), the valve assembly configured to selectively direct an airflow generated by the pneumatic pump to the plurality of outlet ports (control of the electromagnetic valves 2 by the circuit board 3 (Line 317-327, Line 173-208) – causes airflow generated by the diaphragm 13 of the pump to be selectively directed to the outlet ports as claimed); and
a printed circuit board (3, Line 317-327) supported by the housing (Line 111-113, Line 317-327 – the circuit board is set/held in position/supported by element 1 of the housing) and electrically connected to the motor and the valve assembly (Line 317-327);
wherein the valve assembly includes a plurality of control valves (plurality of control valves = three electromagnetic valves 2 illustrated in Fig 2). Additionally, as seen in translated Fig 4 and Fig 5 of CN 116877378 each electromagnetic valve 2 has an air intake port, a inflation port, and an air vent. CN 116877378 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the valve assembly includes a first control valve, a second control valve arranged in series with the first control valve, a third control valve arranged in parallel with the first and second control valves, and a fourth control valve arranged in series with the third control valve. The prior art of DE 10063478 which is directed to a pump system for a massaging function in a seat (Abstract) like CN 116877378, is noted.
However, DE 10063478 does disclose the limitations: wherein the valve assembly (the valve assembly is defined by the sum of its parts and includes valves V1, V2, V3, and V4 in Fig 2), includes a first control valve (V1, Fig 2, ¶0016-¶0017), a second control valve (V2, Fig 2, ¶0016-¶0017) arranged in series with the first control valve (as seen in Fig 2), a third control valve (V3, Fig 2, ¶0016-¶0017) arranged in parallel with the first and second control valves (as seen in Fig 2), and a fourth control valve (V4, Fig 2, ¶0016-¶0017) arranged in series with the third control valve (Attached Figure B).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace two of the three electromagnetic valves 2 illustrated in Fig 2 of CN 116877378 with the two pairs of solenoid valves (e.g. replace the first two valves 2 of CN ‘378 with the pairs V1,V2 and V3,V4); and modify the printed circuit board 3 of CN 116877378 with the control unit 7 as taught by DE 10063478 in order to be able to be able to selectively inflate/deflate the cushions with the two pairs of valves (¶0017).
Regarding Claim 16: CN 116877378 as modified by DE 10063478 discloses the limitations: wherein the first and third control valves are 3/2-way solenoid actuated valves (in the combination of prior art valves V1 and V3 of DE ‘478 are the first and third control valves, and DE ‘478 states that V1 and V3 are 3/2-way solenoid valves in ¶0016).
Additionally Regarding Claim 16: CN 116877378 as modified by DE 10063478 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the second control valve and the fourth control valve are 3/2-way solenoid valves”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the valve assembly such that the second and fourth control valves are 3/2-way solenoid valves--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the second control valve and the fourth control valve being 3/2-way solenoid valves. Additionally, it appears that the pump assembly of CN 116877378 as modified by DE 10063478 would perform equally well with the valve assembly being designed such that the second and fourth control valves are 3/2-way solenoid valves, given that the structure of the pump in the combination of CN 116877378 as modified by DE 10063478 is substantially the same as the structure of the pump in the instant application; and the modification would not appear to adversely affect the operation of the prior art device. Additionally, it is noted that Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the first, second, third, and fourth control valves being 3/2-way solenoid actuated valves as claimed (see e.g. Page 14 ¶0059 in the specification filed on 07/18/2025, where no function or result is applied to each control valve 1505a-1505d being a 3/2-way solenoid valve).
Regarding Claim 17: CN 116877378 discloses the limitations: wherein the plurality of outlet ports includes a first outlet port, a second outlet port, and a third outlet port (Attached Figure A).
Regarding Claim 19: CN 116877378 as modified by DE 10063478 discloses the limitations: wherein the first control valve and the third control valve are configured to selectively connect the plurality of outlet ports to an exhaust port (as seen in the translated Fig 4 and Fig 5 of CN 116877378 – each of the valves has an air vent; and as understood from Fig 2 & ¶0017 of DE 10063478 valves V1 & V3 are used to select if the pump pressurizes the cushion or if the cushion is vented to atmosphere; accordingly it would be within the general skill level of a worker in the art to combine the teachings of CN 116877378 and DE 10063478 - such that when valve V1 or/and V3 is/are used to vent the cushion(s) the outlet port(s) (which connect the valve V2/V4 to cushion 3/4 in Fig 2 of DE 10063478) would be connected to the air vent (in Figs 4/5 of CN 116877378) in order to send the air to atmosphere as well known in the art).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116877378 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon US 2020/0358896.
Regarding Claim 3: CN 116877378 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, CN 116877378 discloses the limitations: wherein the printed circuit board extends to the valve assembly (since the circuit board 3 is used to control the valve assembly, the valve assembly inherently must be connected to the printed circuit board, additionally Fig 3 shows the printed circuit board 3 as being located directly under the valves of the valve assembly in the exploded state shown – thus the printed circuit board 3 extends to the valve assembly as claimed). While the printed circuit board 3 of CN 116877378 is inherently connected to the motor in some manner, CN 116877378 is silent regarding the limitations: the printed circuit board extends continuously from the motor.
However Kwon US 2020/0358896 which is directed to electrically connecting components with a flexible printed circuit board (i.e. electrically connecting element 343 to circuit board 244 via 247,246,236,248, Figs 2A-2D, ¶0084-¶0092).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the wiring connecting the motor to the printed circuit board of CN 116877378 with a flexible printed circuit board as taught by Kwon US 2020/0358896, in order to supply power along the path using the flexible printed circuit board (¶0108-¶0110).
Following the combination of prior art described above, the printed circuit board would include both the printed circuit board 3 of CN 116877378 and the flexible printed circuit board connecting printed circuit board 3 to the motor. Thus since the flexible printed circuit board would be connected to the motor in order to deliver power to the motor, it follows that in the combination of prior art the flexible printed circuit board would extend continuously from the motor as claimed (in order to connect the motor the element 3 of CN 116877378).
PNG
media_image2.png
495
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of CN 116877378 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 4: CN 116877378 discloses the limitations: wherein the housing includes a lower casing 17 coupled to the motor (Attached Figure A, Line 213-222), an upper casing (see Annotated Figure 3 of CN 116877378 (Attached Figure B) above) including the plurality of outlet ports (as understood from Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B – the narrow portion of the upper casing includes the outlet ports as claimed), and a PCB housing (Attached Figure B) coupled to the upper casing (Attached Figure B) and at least partially enclosing the printed circuit board (as understood from Attached Figure B the articulated PCB housing would surround (i.e. partially enclose) element 3 of the printed circuit board in the combination of prior art).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 5-8 and 18 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.
Regarding Claim 5: The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 5 including “wherein the upper casing at least partially encloses the valve assembly, wherein the pneumatic pump includes a diaphragm assembly and a valve plate including a plurality of air intake valves and a plurality of air outlet valves, and wherein the upper casing includes an outlet in communication with the plurality of air outlet valves and the valve assembly” in combination with all the limitations of Claims 1 & 4.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the available prior art in the claimed manner is neither contemplated nor foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 18: The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 18 including “wherein the airflow generated by the pneumatic pump is routed to the third outlet port by the valve assembly when the first control valve, the second control valve, the third control valve, and the fourth control valve are de- energized” in combination with all the other features recited in claims 15 & 17.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the available prior art in the claimed manner is neither contemplated nor foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang US 2022/0055513 – discloses a pump valve module for providing massage function for a vehicle seat.
Schoenmeyr US 2003/0209138 – discloses a wobble plate diaphragm pump.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights