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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show hatching to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify the different parts of the claimed invention. The figure is a sectional view but provide no hatching required to understand the details of the invention as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing and hatching should be used in sectional view to aid in proper understanding of the disclosed invention. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Additionally, The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rounded edges of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchant EP 0132913 in view of Teshima US 20210190064 in further view of Scholle US 4008984 in further view of Kim US 20180030970.
Marchant discloses:
1. A double diaphragm pump with two diaphragm chambers (left and right chambers 20) separated by a center block (14), in which media chambers adjacent to the center block are delimited in each case with the aid of a diaphragm (16, 17), wherein the diaphragms are interconnected through a through-opening (opening through which 22 passes) of the center block by means of a diaphragm rod (22), wherein the through-opening has a plain bearing which contacts the diaphragm rod (see e.g. “A bush extending over the full axial length of the aperture in the partition member may be used instead of rings 23 if desired.” on page 3 lines 24-27).
Marchant does not disclose “and is manufactured from the material of the center block” wherein the center block 14 of Marchant is made of stainless steel (see e.g. “The partition member and the bolts 30 may be made from stainless steel” on page 7 lines 18-19 of Marchant).
Teshima discloses the use of a stainless steel sliding bushing 41 (see e.g. “The bushing 41 is made of, for example, metal or resin such as carbon steel, stainless steel, brass, fluorine resin or nylon.” in 0051).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize stainless steel as a material for the bushing of Marchant as taught by Teshima to gain the benefit of utilizing a material known for bushings in diaphragm pumps.
Marchant does not disclose how the diaphragms are connected to the shaft and thus does not disclose the diaphragm rod has end-side tapered portions for passage through the diaphragms.
Scholle discloses the diaphragm rod has end-side tapered portions for passage through the diaphragms (see e.g. Fig 4)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize tapered ends for passage thought the diaphragms as taught by Scholle in the pump of Marchant as modified above to gain the benefit of using a known method for connecting diaphragms to the connecting shaft.
Marchant does not disclose the diaphragm rod has a circumferential surface to which a continuous sliding coating is assigned, wherein, wherein the sliding coating is applied only between the tapered portions.
Kim discloses the use of a coating layer formed on the outer peripheral surface of a shaft of a pump (see e.g. 0021, 0078).
Given the disclosure of Kim showing that it is known to coat a shaft with PTFE in a pump to reduce bearing wear, as per the obvious rationales of MPEP 2143 I (C) and (D) coating the shaft of the pump of Marchant as modified above to obtain the predictable result of reducing bearing wear would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art:
(C) Use of known technique (coating a shaft of a pump with PTFE) to improve similar devices (the shaft of a pump)) in the same way (coating with PTFE);
(D) Applying a known technique (coating a shaft of a pump with PTFE) to a known device (shaft of a pump) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (reducing wear of the bearing in which the shaft slides);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize Teflon coating on the shaft of Marchant as modified above as taught by Kim to gain the benefit of reducing wear on the bearing as taught by Kim in 0078.
Regarding the limitations wherein the sliding coating is applied only between the tapered portions, there would be no reason to apply the coating to any surface of the shaft that does not engage the bearing because the purpose of the coating is to prevent bearing wear as detailed above. It is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the coating of Kim only to areas that engage the bearing of Marchant because the purpose of the coating is to reduce bearing wear.
Marchant as modified above discloses:
2. The double diaphragm pump according to claim 1, wherein the center block 14 forms, on both sides, a media chamber wall adjoining the respective diaphragm in one piece and without joints (see e.g. Fig 1 of Marchant).
Regarding claim 3, rounding of edges is a commonly known and used manufacturing technique to avoid sharp edges and chipping of edges. Therefore, the limitations wherein edges occurring on the center block are rounded would not only be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art but would be “common sense” to a person of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Additionally, applicant has not even shown the rounded edges in the drawings or identified in the specification which particular edges are rounded and applicant has not disclosed significance/criticality that the edges be rounded. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize the known manufacturing technique of rounding edges of the center block.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to round edges in any portion of the pump of Marchand as modified above including the center block to gain the benefit of avoid sharp edges and chipping of edges.
4. The double diaphragm pump according to claim 1, wherein the center block is manufactured from stainless steel or a stainless steel alloy (see e.g. “The partition member and the bolts 30 may be made from stainless steel” on page 7 lines 18-19 of Marchant).
8. The double diaphragm pump according to claim 1, wherein the diaphragm rod (14) is manufactured from stainless steel or a stainless steel alloy (see e.g. 0039 of Teshima).
9. The double diaphragm pump according to claim 1, wherein the sliding coating (15) is a plastic coating (see e.g. PTFE in 0021 and 0078 of Kim).
10. The double diaphragm pump according to claim 1, wherein the sliding coating (15) is a coating made of polytetrafluoroethylene (see e.g. PTFE in 0021 and 0078 of Kim).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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: given the claim interpretations above, the means in claims 5-6 are interpreted as the disclosed structure shown in applicant’s figure that performs the entire claimed function (including structural elements 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and the other unlabeled structural elements attached thereto) in the figure that perform the claimed function and structures that are so structurally similar to applicant’s disclosed structure as to be considered an equivalent structure.
Conclusion
See form PTO-892 for additional prior art made of record but not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights