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 § 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) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissler (US 2021/0088043) in view of Even et al. (herein Even) (DE 102007023087, English translation previously appended).Regarding Claim 15:In Figures 1-3, Geissler discloses a piston pump (1) comprising: a pump housing (6, 8, 13) having a crankshaft chamber (chamber within 6, henceforth referred to as CC), a pumping chamber (5), and one or more piston passages (7), each piston passages extending from the crankshaft chamber to the pumping chamber (as seen in Figure 2); a crankshaft (2) rotatably mounted in the crankshaft chamber (see paragraphs [0030] and [0066]), the crankshaft (2) having a longitudinally extending crankshaft rotation axis (4), and one or more cams (27) distributed along the crankshaft axis; and one or more pistons (3), each piston corresponding to a cam of the one or more cams (as seen in Figure 2), each piston slidably mounted in a corresponding piston passage of the one or more piston passages between a nose position (center piston in Figure 2 is at a nose position) and a heel position (right piston in Figure 2 is at a heel position), each piston having a piston shaft (31) extending within the corresponding piston passage (see Figure 2), the piston shaft having a first shaft end (bottom end) positioned in the crankshaft chamber (as seen in Figure 2, the 1st shaft end is in CC for the right piston) and a second shaft end (upper end of 31), the first shaft end having a cam engagement side (bottom side of 3) in contact with the corresponding cam (as seen in Figure 1).
Geissler is silent regarding the method used to manufacture the one or more cams. However, in the abstract, Even discloses that cams associated with a camshaft can be manufactured from an extrusion process using a steel alloy.Hence, based on Even’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have extrusion-formed Geissler’s cams (27) using an extrusion process (for instance using the process taught by Even) since doing so would produce extrusion-formed cams that could be reliably manufactured by a potentially lower cost manufacturing process. Regarding Claim 16:Geissler as modified by Even is silent regarding extruded metal. However, in the abstract, Even discloses that cams associated with a camshaft can be manufactured from an extrusion process using a steel alloy.Hence, based on Even’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have extrusion-formed Geissler’s cams (27) using an extrusion process (for instance using the process taught by Even) on a steel alloy (as taught by Even) since doing so would produce robust extrusion-formed cams that could be reliably manufactured by a potentially lower cost manufacturing process.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissler (US 2021/0088043) in view of Even et al. (herein Even) (DE 102007023087, English translation previously appended) in view of Lin et al. (herein Lin) (CN 113210450, English translation previously appended) in view of Kosek (US 2006/0177327).Regarding Claim 17:Geissler as modified by Even discloses the piston pump wherein the crankshaft comprises a crankshaft axle (axle defined along axis 4 seen in Geissler’s Figure 2), and the one or more extrusion-formed cams (27) are connected to the crankshaft axle (see Figure 2).
Geissler as modified by Even is silent regarding the method used to manufacture the crankshaft axle.
However Lin discloses a crankshaft manufactured using an extrusion process. Specifically on page 2, paragraph 6 of the appended translation, Lin states: “The crankshaft manufactured by the manufacturing method of the above-mentioned embodiment can be obtained by extrusion molding to obtain a crankshaft blank, which can meet the requirements of high rigidity and high wear resistance. High, lower manufacturing cost and higher practicability.”Hence, based on Lin’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have extrusion-formed Geissler’s crankshaft and crankshaft axle using an extrusion process (for instance using the process taught by Lin) since doing so would produce an extrusion-formed crankshaft that would have high rigidity and high wear resistance.
Geissler as modified discloses the plurality of cams (27) being integrally formed with a
crankshaft axle (axle through which axis 4 passes in Figure 2) and so fails to disclose
the cams being removably connected to the crankshaft axle.However, in Figures 2-5, Kosek discloses a similar pump wherein a cam (22) is
removably connected to a crankshaft axle (12) as mentioned in paragraphs [0018]-
[0023] as follows: “The drive actuator 22 can be attached to a rotor (e.g. via shaft 12) of
a motor by any of the following (however not limited to) methods: [0019] 1) Press fit onto
the shaft of the rotor [0020] 2) Machined surface of the shaft [0021] 3) Crimped [0022]
4) Welded [0023] 5) Bonded.” Methods such as machined surface attachment, press-
fitting and crimps can be removed as desired after attachment (per claim 7) since they
are not permanent connections (for instance welds). Furthermore, Kosek’s cam (22) has
a central opening (24) sized to receive the crankshaft axle, and each cam is slidably
removably connected to the crankshaft axle (12) through the central opening (see
paragraph [0024]).Hence, based on Kosek’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to
have made Geissler’s cams removably connected to the crankshaft axle (as taught by
Kosek) such that the cams could be crimped in place so that they don’t slide across the axle (as taught by both Kosek). Crimps can be removed as desired at a later stage to slide the cams off the axle when maintenance or replacement is required.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissler (US 2021/0088043) in view of Even et al. (herein Even) (DE 102007023087, English translation previously appended) in further view of Boecking (DE 102008041934, English translation previously appended).Regarding Claims 18:
Geissler as modified by Even fails to disclose that each of the one or more extrusion-formed cams has a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart, extrusion-formed hollow cores.However, in Figures 1-2, Boecking discloses a similar cam (3) that has two opposing circumferentially spaced hollow cores (5). As stated under the advantages of the invention: “According to the invention, the stiffness of the cam is reduced by a cavity in the area of maximum stroke, whereby the cam can deform in the apex area under pressure and consequently does not contact the roller with a line contact but with a surface contact. This surface contact leads overall to a higher durability of the camshaft or Piston pump at high pressure. The hollow cam according to the invention can be provided for camshafts with single, double or multiple cams.”Hence, based on Boecking’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Geissler’s extrusion formed cams (27) to be hollow by forming at least two circumferentially spaced hollow cores within them (as taught by Boecking), since doing so would allow for the cam to deform in the apex area, thereby leading to a higher durability of the camshaft at high pressure.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissler (US 2021/0088043) in view of Even et al. (herein Even) (DE 102007023087, English translation previously appended) in further view of LoBiondo et al. (herein LoBiondo) (US 2008/0184879). Regarding Claim 19:
Geissler as modified by Even is silent regarding the method used to manufacture the pistons (3).
However, in paragraph [0033], LoBiondo discloses a method of manufacturing a piston using an extrusion process of a precursor to form a piston (10). Hence, based on LoBiondo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have extrusion-formed Geissler’s pistons (3) using an extrusion process (for instance using the process taught by LoBiondo) since doing so would produce extrusion-formed pistons that could be reliably manufactured by a potentially lower cost manufacturing process.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissler (US 2021/0088043) in view of Even et al. (herein Even) (DE 102007023087, English translation previously appended) in view of LoBiondo et al. (herein LoBiondo) (US 2008/0184879) in further view of Nizarali (GB 2024938). Regarding Claims 7 and 20:Geissler as modified by Even is silent regarding the process used to form the piston shaft, the piston crown and whether the piston crown is removably connected to the first end of the piston.
However, in paragraph [0033], LoBiondo discloses a method of manufacturing a piston using an extrusion process of a precursor form a piston (10) wherein said piston comprises a piston crown (12). Hence, based on LoBiondo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have extrusion-formed Geissler’s pistons (3) including the respective piston shafts (31) and piston crowns (i.e., Geissler’s piston portion engaging the cams) using an extrusion process (for instance using the process taught by LoBiondo) since doing so would produce extrusion-formed pistons that could be reliably manufactured by a potentially lower cost manufacturing process. As modified above, Geissler also fails to disclose that the piston crowns are removably connected to the first end of the piston. However, Nizarali discloses a piston (130) which has a separate crown (131) which is removably secured to the piston using a screw (132). Hence, based on Nizarali’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed Geissler’s extrusion-formed piston crowns as removably connectable to Geissler’s extrusion formed piston end (using removable means such as screws as taught by Nizarali), since doing so would allow for the easy replacement of the piston crowns for maintenance and replacement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 citing the teachings of Geissler in view of Schlitzkus are considered persuasive. Specifically, the applicant has clarified that the claimed “extrusion-formed surfaces” possess specific physical characteristics because they are formed in an extrusion direction that is parallel to the crankshaft rotation axis. This has been found to be persuasive since this claimed extrusion direction parallel to the crankshaft rotation axis is not specifically mentioned in any of the previously cited prior art references and so is considered novel and unique.
Claims 2-14 are also allowed since they depend on allowed claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/4/2026, with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 15 citing the teachings of Geissler in view of Even is improper. To support this argument, the applicant states that Even teaches impact extrusion whereas the instant application is directed to profile extrusion to form the cams. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “profiled extrusion”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As broadly recited, Even teaches forming cams using an extrusion process wherein the specific extrusion process is not claimed in claim 15. Hence, this argument is not persuasive.
Arguments pertaining to claims 16-20 are moot since the grounds of rejection have been changed due to a change in dependencies for these claims.
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 DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746