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 .
Drawings
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 “concave tip” (claim 1) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 155 (Figure 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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 1-7, 9, 11, 15-18 and 20-25 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 1 includes new limitations initially disclose “an axial bearing for said impeller” and later mention “said axial bearing for said drive rotor” wherein it is unclear if the axial bearing for the impeller is the same axial bearing for the drive rotor as well.
Claim 1 also recites the following limitations: “an axial bearing for said impeller is provided on an upper end of said impeller and fitted to said impeller….said axial bearing for said drive rotor is arranged at a central location at an uppermost region or in a region of said drive rotor being closest to said pump inlet and being arranged in extension of said bearing shaft.” In the specification the impeller (50) and the drive rotor (35) are separate elements with the impeller located above the drive rotor (see paragraph [0035] of the original specification). If the impeller is located above the rotor and the axial bearing is provided on an upper end of the impeller, it is unclear if a separate axial bearing for the drive rotor is also provided at a central location at an uppermost region or in a region of the drive rotor closest to the pump inlet. If they are considered to be the same axial bearing for both the impeller and the rotor, it is unclear if a single axial bearing can be simultaneously disposed on both the impeller as well as the drive rotor. From the specification and drawings it appears that there is only one axial bearing (55) that is provided on an upper end of said impeller and fitted to said impeller. Alternately, if the impeller (150) is formed integrally with the drive rotor (135) as shown in an alternate embodiment (Figure 3, paragraph [0052]) then the two limitations above should be separated as alternates for the two different species in Figure 2 an Figure 3 respectively. Hence, it is unclear if there is a separate axial bearing at an uppermost region or in a region of said drive rotor being closest to said pump inlet as claimed OR if the axial bearing for the impeller is the same axial bearing for the drive rotor.
Claim 1 recites the new limitation: “said axial bearing for said impeller abuts said axial counter-bearing.” It is unclear if this refers to constant abutting contact between the axial bearing and the axial counter-bearing. The specification in paragraph [0023] states: “As a result, in the idle state of the drive rotor/impeller, even a spacing between the axial bearing and axial counter-bearing may be provided, advantageously in the above-mentioned region, in a particularly advantageous manner between 0.5 mm and 3 mm.” Hence, in the idle state it appears that the axial bearing and the axial-counter bearing are not abutting and instead are spaced apart from each other. Hence, it is unclear if the claimed abutting contact occurs always or only when the pump is operational and not in an idle state. Note that this spacing is also claimed in claim 12 which indicates that there is no abutment between the axial bearing and the axial counter bearing in some modes of operation.
Claim 17 discloses “an axial bearing” in line 7. It is unclear if this is the same axial bearing presented in parent claim 1. For the purposes of examination they will be assumed to be the same.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11, 15-18 and 20-25 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 depends on claim 8 which was canceled and so it fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 13-14 are also rejected since they depend on rejected claim 12.
Please note that no prior art rejections are being provided for these claims since the proper scope of these claims cannot be fully ascertained at this time. Also for now, a lack of prior art rejections for these claims should not be construed as an indication of allowable subject matter. Any attempt to overcome this rejection would most likely result in a change of scope of these claims, which would in turn require further search and/or consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the new grounds of rejection being used in the current office action.
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