DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 15 – 34 are pending and currently being examined.
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
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.
Claims 15 – 20 and 22 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, Page 1, Lines 8 – 12 of Applicant’s Specification) in view of Shaefer (PG Pub US 20060207659 A1) and in view of Opfel (PG Pub US 20030222000 A1) and in view of Angell (US Patent 2,781,831 A) and further in view of Fowler (PG Pub US 20170030359 A1).
In Re Claim 15, AAPA discloses a mobile pump system for pumping water and/or extinguishing agent (Page 1, Line 8), comprising: a frame (Page 1, Line 9) for housing the pump system; a booster pump (Page 1, Line 9) arranged in the frame; one or more submersible pumps (Page 1, Lines 10 – 11) arranged in the frame; a booster pump motor drive (Page 1, Line 11) configured to drive the booster pump; a motor drive (Page 1, Line 12) configured to drive the one or more submersible pumps, wherein the booster pump is configured to displace water and/or extinguishing agent (Page 1, Lines 9 – 10) and the submersible pump is configured to pump water for extinguishing and/or pumping up flood water (since it is a submersible pump, it pumps flood water).
Although AAPA does not explicitly disclose that the submersible pump is driven by a hydraulics motor drive, however it is known to drive such submersible pumps by hydraulics as attested by Shaefer, see paragraph [0067]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydraulics motor to drive the submersible pump of AAPA, in light of the teachings of Shaefer, as is conventional in the art.
AAPA and Shaefer do not disclose a coupling for selectively coupling the booster pump to the hydraulics motor drive to enable the hydraulics motor drive to function as auxiliary drive for the booster pump.
However, it is well known that pumps can move fluid over greater distance when provided with extra power either by increasing the power of a single pump motor or by combining plural pump motors to obtain a much higher output power as attested by Opfel, see paragraph [0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided extra power to the booster pump of AAPA/Schaefer by using an auxiliary drive such as another pump motor, in light of the teachings of Opfel, in order to displace water and/or extinguishing agent over a greater distance than is achievable using the booster pump motor drive alone, as is known in the art.
AAPA/Schaefer/Opfel does not specifically disclose that the extra power provided to the booster pump motor drive is coming from coupling the booster pump to the hydraulics motor drive however, Angell discloses a hydraulic motor drive (30; “turbine”; Column 1, Lines 37 – 45) that drives the motive fluid pump (“main pump” 42) of a hydraulic drive (that includes hydraulic motor 16). The booster pump (11) is initially driven by a booster pump motor drive (electric motor 15), and the hydraulic motor drive is configured to function as auxiliary drive for the booster pump (Column 1, Lines 41 – 42 and 51 – 52) when the discharge pressure of the booster pump reaches a sufficient value (Column 1, Lines 42 – 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the hydraulics drive motor of AAPA/Schaefer to provide the extra power to the booster pump, in light of the teachings of Angell since using the already present hydraulics motor drive would alleviate the need for bringing in an extra motor and as such would make the pump system more compact. Applicant should note that it is inherent that there would have to be some type of coupling for coupling the booster pump to the hydraulics motor drive. In Angell for example, booster pump (11) is coupled to the hydraulics motor drive through common shaft 23, tube 29 and nipple 46 (fig. 1).
With regards to the limitation “selectively” {coupling the booster pump to the hydraulic motor drive}, the examiner first contends that this is only a manner of operating the above device constructed by the examiner which does not structurally distinguish the apparatus over the prior art (MPEP 2114-II). Further, it has been held (see MPEP 2112.02-I) that under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Opfel clearly discloses that greater combined power can be provided by combining pump-motors in a single system to provide pumping over greater distances. Therefore, Opfel demonstrates that the prior art performs selective coupling in its normal/usual operation.
Alternatively, if it is not clear to applicant that selective coupling of two pumps is disclosed:
However, Fowler discloses either selectively using a single pump to enable pumping over a specific distance (paragraph [0023]: “One of ordinary skill in the art appreciates that pump station 100 can comprise more or less than four pumps, for example only one pump”), and coupling two pumps (in series or parallel) to enable pumping over a greater selected distance (paragraph [0037]: “According to selected distances between pump stations, the number of individual pumps may need to be adjusted. For example, the longer the distance between pump stations, the more pumps at the pump station may be required in order to provide flow”).
In light of Fowler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively couple the two pumps AAPA/Schaefer/Opfel/Angell in order to provide the necessary flow over longer distances than what is within the capability of one pump alone.
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Shaefer further discloses a hydraulic drive (66) drivable by the hydraulic motor drive (68) (paragraph [0094]: “hydraulic motors fixed to the floating submersible satellite pumps”, 66 provides motive fluid to drive the hydraulic motors). In the modified apparatus, when the submersible pump drive is coupled to the booster pump drive, the submersible pumps are still driven by the submersible pump drive, therefore (66) and (68) can be designated as part of the broadly claimed coupling.
In Re Claim 17, AAPA does not explicitly disclose a controller.
However, Shaefer further discloses a controller for controlling the booster pump (paragraph [0094] states that the electronic engine control system controls the main pump discharge pressure) and the hydraulics motor drive (paragraph [0081] discloses a control interface for the engine 68 section of the hydraulic motor drive: 68 + 66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the controller of Shaefer to control the booster pump and hydraulic motor drive of AAPA since conventional controllers are known to be suitable for controlling pumps.
In Re Claim 18, AAPA does not explicitly disclose sensors.
However, Shaefer further discloses that the pump system is provided with one or more sensors (paragraph [0016] discloses “sense water inlet pressure”; paragraph [0094] discloses: “track main pump discharge pressure”; which is tantamount to the existence of two sensors) operatively connected to the controller (paragraph [0094] states that the electronic engine control system controls the main pump discharge pressure) for controlling the booster pump (paragraph [0094]: “and automatically increase or decrease engine speed as needed to continuously maintain discharge”) and hydraulics motor drive (paragraph [0083]: “hydraulic pump driver control”; paragraph [0016]: “control output of the first and second satellite pumps” which is tantamount to controlling the hydraulics motor drive that drives the hydraulic motor of the satellite pumps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify AAPA to incorporate sensors operatively connected to the controller as taught by Shaefer for the purpose of enabling the controller to perform its function.
In Re Claim 19, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Shaefer further discloses a control panel (paragraph [0066]) for operating and/or setting the pump system (paragraph [0066] discloses access to suction and discharge connections).
In Re Claim 20, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 19, and Shaefer further discloses that the control panel (paragraph [0066]) is provided on an outer side of the frame (paragraph [0066] discloses a side door that provides access to the control panel, so the control panel is on an outer side of the frame).
In Re Claim 22, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Shaefer further discloses that the hydraulics motor drive (68 + 66) is provided with radiator (68a; Figure 3A) cooling (paragraph [0085]).
In Re Claim 23, AAPA does not disclose a metering pump.
Shaefer further discloses a metering pump (paragraph [0092]: “transfer pump” for pumping additive like foam, a foam pump in applicant’s specification is referred to as a metering pump).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify AAPA to incorporate a metering pump as taught by Shaefer for the purpose of delivering foam additive which assists in firefighting.
In Re Claim 24, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 23, and Shaefer further discloses that the metering pump is provided with a displaceable metering pump frame (paragraph [0092] discloses a tanker which reads on a displaceable frame).
In Re Claim 25, AAPA does not disclose a displaceable frame for the submersible pump.
However, Shaefer further discloses that the one or more submersible pumps (60) are provided with a displaceable submersible pump frame (61; paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the submersible pump of AAPA to incorporate a displaceable submersible pump frame as taught by Shaefer for the purpose of filtering the water (paragraph [0077] discloses that the frame includes a “suction inlet strainer”).
In Re Claim 26, AAPA, Shaefer, Angell, Opfel and Fowler as applied to Claim 15 discloses a device that anticipates the claimed method steps (MPEP 2112.02 – I states that if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device).
In Re Claim 27, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 26, and Shaefer further discloses a hydraulic drive (66) drivable by the hydraulic motor drive (68) (paragraph [0094]: “hydraulic motors fixed to the floating submersible satellite pumps”, 66 provides motive fluid to drive the hydraulic motors). In the modified apparatus, when the submersible pump drive is coupled (by the mechanical coupling of Angell) to the booster pump drive, the submersible pumps are still driven by the submersible pump drive, therefore (66) and (68) perform the claimed “hydraulic driving of the coupling”.
In Re Claims 28 – 30, AAPA does not explicitly disclose autonomous controlling and a controller.
However, Shaefer further discloses autonomous controlling (paragraph [0020]: “automatic control”) and a controller for controlling the booster pump (paragraph [0094] states that the electronic engine control system controls the main pump discharge pressure) and the hydraulics motor drive (paragraph [0081] discloses a control interface for the engine 68 section of the hydraulic motor drive: 68 + 66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the controller and autonomous controlling of Shaefer to control the booster pump and hydraulic motor drive of AAPA since conventional controllers are known to be suitable for controlling pumps.
In Re Claim 31, AAPA does not explicitly disclose sensors.
However, Shaefer further discloses that the pump system is provided with one or more sensors (paragraph [0016] discloses “sense water inlet pressure”; paragraph [0094] discloses: “track main pump discharge pressure”; which is tantamount to the existence of two sensors) operatively connected to the controller (paragraph [0094] states that the electronic engine control system controls the main pump discharge pressure) for controlling the booster pump (paragraph [0094]: “and automatically increase or decrease engine speed as needed to continuously maintain discharge”) and hydraulics motor drive (paragraph [0083]: “hydraulic pump driver control”; paragraph [0016]: “control output of the first and second satellite pumps” which is tantamount to controlling the hydraulics motor drive that drives the hydraulic motor of the satellite pumps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify AAPA to incorporate sensors operatively connected to the controller as taught by Shaefer for the purpose of enabling the controller to perform its function.
In Re Claim 32, AAPA, Shaefer, Angell, Opfel and Fowler as applied to Claims 15, 17 and 19 disclose all the claimed limitations.
In Re Claim 33, AAPA, Shaefer, Angell, Opfel and Fowler as applied to Claims 15, 17, 18 and 19 disclose all the claimed limitations.
In Re Claim 34, AAPA, Shaefer, Angell, Opfel and Fowler as applied to Claims 15, 17, 18, 19 and 25 disclose all the claimed limitations.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, Page 1, Lines 8 – 12 of Applicant’s Specification) in view of Shaefer (PG Pub US 20060207659 A1) and in view of Opfel (PG Pub US 20030222000 A1) and in view of Angell (US Patent 2,781,831 A) and in view of Fowler (PG Pub US 20170030359 A1) and further in view of Brown (PG Pub US 20080302316 A1).
In Re Claim 21, AAPA does not disclose water cooling.
However, Brown discloses an engine that is cooled by coolant water pumped from a lake directly to the engine jacket (paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to pump lake water as taught by Brown to a cooling jacket of the booster pump motor drive of AAPA / Shaefer / Angell for cooling purposes (paragraph [0006] of Brown).
Claims 15 – 20 and 22 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, Page 1, Lines 8 – 12 of Applicant’s Specification) in view of Shaefer (PG Pub US 20060207659 A1) and in view of Opfel (PG Pub US 20030222000 A1) and in view of Houck (US Patent 4,004,470 A) and further in view of Fowler (PG Pub US 20170030359 A1).
In Re Claim 15, AAPA discloses a mobile pump system for pumping water and/or extinguishing agent (Page 1, Line 8), comprising: a frame (Page 1, Line 9) for housing the pump system; a booster pump (Page 1, Line 9) arranged in the frame; one or more submersible pumps (Page 1, Lines 10 – 11) arranged in the frame; a booster pump motor drive (Page 1, Line 11) configured to drive the booster pump; a motor drive (Page 1, Line 12) configured to drive the one or more submersible pumps, wherein the booster pump is configured to displace water and/or extinguishing agent (Page 1, Lines 9 – 10) and the submersible pump is configured to pump water for extinguishing and/or pumping up flood water (since it is a submersible pump, it pumps flood water).
Although AAPA does not explicitly disclose that the submersible pump is driven by a hydraulics motor drive, however it is known to drive such submersible pumps by hydraulics as attested by Shaefer, see paragraph [0067]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydraulics motor to drive the submersible pump of AAPA, in light of the teachings of Shaefer, as is conventional in the art.
AAPA and Shaefer do not disclose a coupling for selectively coupling the booster pump to the hydraulics motor drive to enable the hydraulics motor drive to function as auxiliary drive for the booster pump.
However, it is well known that pumps can move fluid over greater distance when provided with extra power either by increasing the power of a single pump motor or by combining plural pump motors to obtain a much higher output power as attested by Opfel, see paragraph [0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided extra power to the booster pump of AAPA/Schaefer by using an auxiliary drive such as another pump motor, in light of the teachings of Opfel, in order to displace water and/or extinguishing agent over a greater distance than is achievable using the booster pump motor drive alone, as is known in the art.
AAPA/Schaefer/Opfel does not specifically disclose that the extra power provided to the booster pump motor drive is coming from coupling the booster pump to the hydraulics motor drive however, Houck discloses a mobile (Abstract: “the entire system can be transported by helicopters”) pump system (Figures 1 – 3) for pumping water and/or extinguishing agent (a mud pump is also capable of pumping water), comprising: a frame (50; Figure 3) for housing the pump system; a booster pump (42B) arranged in the frame; one or more submersible pumps (42A; conventional mud pumps are submersible) arranged in the frame (50); a booster pump motor drive (14B) configured to drive the booster pump; a hydraulics motor drive (14A) configured to drive the one or more submersible pumps (42A)(mud pumps are known to have hydraulic drives in the form of a motive fluid pump which drives a hydraulic motor which drives the mud pump; the motive fluid pump would be driven by the engine 14A), wherein the hydraulics motor drive (14A) is configured to function as auxiliary drive for the booster pump (42B)(engine 14B drives the draw works and booster pump 42B simultaneously – see Column 2, Lines 32 – 41; when jaw clutch 24A is disengaged each engine drives its pump independently, when jaw clutch is engaged engine 14A functions as an auxiliary drive for engine 14B – see Column 1, Lines 50 – 54; in doing so engine 14A functions as an auxiliary drive for pump 42B); and a coupling (24A, 26A, 36, 26B) for coupling the booster pump (42B) to the hydraulics motor drive (14A) such that the hydraulics motor drive (14A) can function as auxiliary drive for the booster pump (42B) when jaw clutch 24A is engaged (Column 2, Lines 42 – 49); wherein the booster pump (42B) is configured to displace water and/or extinguishing agent (a mud pump is capable of pumping water) and the submersible pump (42A) is configured to pump water for extinguishing and/or pumping up flood water (a mud pump is capable of pumping water). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the hydraulics drive motor of AAPA/Schaefer to provide the extra power to the booster pump, in light of the teachings of Houck since using the already present hydraulics motor drive would alleviate the need for bringing in an extra motor and as such would make the pump system more compact. Note that Houck is relevant to the problem “Conventional pump systems therefore make use here of heavy drives” (Page 1 Line 15 of Applicant’s specification) that applicant is trying to solve in view of Houck’s disclosure in Column 1, Line 67: “demountable into small subassemblies, each of which weigh less than a selected magnitude”. Further, Houck also satisfies the field of endeavor test because it is a similar structure to applicant’s invention (MPEP 2141.01(a) Section IV) in view of Houck’s disclosure: “This application deals only with the engine, power compound and pump system” in Column 1, Line 43.
With regards to the limitation “selectively” {coupling the booster pump to the hydraulic motor drive}, the examiner first contends that this is only a manner of operating the above device constructed by the examiner which does not structurally distinguish the apparatus over the prior art (MPEP 2114-II). Houck clearly discloses coupling pump drives using a clutch (24A) to provide greater power to at least a pump, therefore selective coupling is only a manner of operation of the clutch (24A) of Houck. Further, it has been held (see MPEP 2112.02-I) that under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Opfel clearly discloses that greater combined power can be provided by combining pump-motors in a single system to provide pumping over greater distances. Therefore, Opfel demonstrates that the prior art performs selective coupling in its normal/usual operation. Alternatively, if it is not clear to applicant that selective coupling of two pumps is disclosed:
However, Fowler discloses either selectively using a single pump to enable pumping over a specific distance (paragraph [0023]: “One of ordinary skill in the art appreciates that pump station 100 can comprise more or less than four pumps, for example only one pump”), and coupling two pumps (in series or parallel) to enable pumping over a greater selected distance (paragraph [0037]: “According to selected distances between pump stations, the number of individual pumps may need to be adjusted. For example, the longer the distance between pump stations, the more pumps at the pump station may be required in order to provide flow”).
In light of Fowler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively couple the two pumps AAPA/Schaefer/Opfel/Houck in order to provide the necessary flow over longer distances than what is within the capability of one pump alone.
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Shaefer further discloses a hydraulic drive (66) drivable by the hydraulic motor drive (68) (paragraph [0094]: “hydraulic motors fixed to the floating submersible satellite pumps”, 66 provides motive fluid to drive the hydraulic motors). In the modified apparatus, when the submersible pump drive is coupled to the booster pump drive via the coupling of Houck, the submersible pumps are still driven by the submersible pump drive, therefore (66) and (68) can be designated as part of the broadly claimed coupling.
In Re Claim 17, AAPA does not explicitly disclose a controller.
However, Shaefer further discloses a controller for controlling the booster pump (paragraph [0094] states that the electronic engine control system controls the main pump discharge pressure) and the hydraulics motor drive (paragraph [0081] discloses a control interface for the engine 68 section of the hydraulic motor drive: 68 + 66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the controller of Shaefer to control the booster pump and hydraulic motor drive of AAPA since conventional controllers are known to be suitable for controlling pumps.
In Re Claim 18, AAPA does not explicitly disclose sensors.
However, Shaefer further discloses that the pump system is provided with one or more sensors (paragraph [0016] discloses “sense water inlet pressure”; paragraph [0094] discloses: “track main pump discharge pressure”; which is tantamount to the existence of two sensors) operatively connected to the controller (paragraph [0094] states that the electronic engine control system controls the main pump discharge pressure) for controlling the booster pump (paragraph [0094]: “and automatically increase or decrease engine speed as needed to continuously maintain discharge”) and hydraulics motor drive (paragraph [0083]: “hydraulic pump driver control”; paragraph [0016]: “control output of the first and second satellite pumps” which is tantamount to controlling the hydraulics motor drive that drives the hydraulic motor of the satellite pumps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify AAPA to incorporate sensors operatively connected to the controller as taught by Shaefer for the purpose of enabling the controller to perform its function.
In Re Claim 19, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Shaefer further discloses a control panel (paragraph [0066]) for operating and/or setting the pump system (paragraph [0066] discloses access to suction and discharge connections).
In Re Claim 20, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 19, and Shaefer further discloses that the control panel (paragraph [0066]) is provided on an outer side of the frame (paragraph [0066] discloses a side door that provides access to the control panel, so the control panel is on an outer side of the frame).
In Re Claim 22, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Shaefer further discloses that the hydraulics motor drive (68 + 66) is provided with radiator (68a; Figure 3A) cooling (paragraph [0085]).
In Re Claim 23, AAPA does not disclose a metering pump.
Shaefer further discloses a metering pump (paragraph [0092]: “transfer pump” for pumping additive like foam, a foam pump in applicant’s specification is referred to as a metering pump).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify AAPA to incorporate a metering pump as taught by Shaefer for the purpose of delivering foam additive which assists in firefighting.
In Re Claim 24, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 23, and Shaefer further discloses that the metering pump is provided with a displaceable metering pump frame (paragraph [0092] discloses a tanker which reads on a displaceable frame).
In Re Claim 25, AAPA does not disclose a displaceable frame for the submersible pump.
However, Shaefer further discloses that the one or more submersible pumps (60) are provided with a displaceable submersible pump frame (61; paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the submersible pump of AAPA to incorporate a displaceable submersible pump frame as taught by Shaefer for the purpose of filtering the water (paragraph [0077] discloses that the frame includes a “suction inlet strainer”).
In Re Claim 26, AAPA, Shaefer and Houck as applied to Claim 15 discloses a device that anticipates the claimed method steps (MPEP 2112.02 – I states that if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device).
In Re Claim 27, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 26, and Shaefer further discloses a hydraulic drive (66) drivable by the hydraulic motor drive (68) (paragraph [0094]: “hydraulic motors fixed to the floating submersible satellite pumps”, 66 provides motive fluid to drive the hydraulic motors). In the modified apparatus, when the submersible pump drive is coupled (by the mechanical coupling of Houck) to the booster pump drive, the submersible pumps are still driven by the submersible pump drive, therefore (66) and (68) perform the claimed “hydraulic driving of the coupling”.
In Re Claims 28 – 30, AAPA does not explicitly disclose autonomous controlling and a controller.
However, Shaefer further discloses autonomous controlling (paragraph [0020]: “automatic control”) and a controller for controlling the booster pump (paragraph [0094] states that the electronic engine control system controls the main pump discharge pressure) and the hydraulics motor drive (paragraph [0081] discloses a control interface for the engine 68 section of the hydraulic motor drive: 68 + 66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the controller and autonomous controlling of Shaefer to control the booster pump and hydraulic motor drive of AAPA since conventional controllers are known to be suitable for controlling pumps.
In Re Claim 31, AAPA does not explicitly disclose sensors.
However, Shaefer further discloses that the pump system is provided with one or more sensors (paragraph [0016] discloses “sense water inlet pressure”; paragraph [0094] discloses: “track main pump discharge pressure”; which is tantamount to the existence of two sensors) operatively connected to the controller (paragraph [0094] states that the electronic engine control system controls the main pump discharge pressure) for controlling the booster pump (paragraph [0094]: “and automatically increase or decrease engine speed as needed to continuously maintain discharge”) and hydraulics motor drive (paragraph [0083]: “hydraulic pump driver control”; paragraph [0016]: “control output of the first and second satellite pumps” which is tantamount to controlling the hydraulics motor drive that drives the hydraulic motor of the satellite pumps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify AAPA to incorporate sensors operatively connected to the controller as taught by Shaefer for the purpose of enabling the controller to perform its function.
In Re Claim 32, AAPA, Shaefer, Houck, Opfel and Fowler as applied to Claims 15, 17 and 19 disclose all the claimed limitations.
In Re Claim 33, AAPA, Shaefer, Houck, Opfel and Fowler as applied to Claims 15, 17, 18 and 19 disclose all the claimed limitations.
In Re Claim 34, AAPA, Shaefer, Houck, Opfel and Fowler as applied to Claims 15, 17, 18, 19 and 25 disclose all the claimed limitations.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, Page 1, Lines 8 – 12 of Applicant’s Specification) in view of Shaefer (PG Pub US 20060207659 A1) and in view Opfel (PG Pub US 20030222000 A1) and in view of Houck (US Patent 4,004,470 A) and in view of Fowler (PG Pub US 20170030359 A1) and further in view of Brown (PG Pub US 20080302316 A1).
In Re Claim 21, AAPA does not disclose water cooling.
However, Brown discloses an engine that is cooled by coolant water pumped from a lake directly to the engine jacket (paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to pump lake water as taught by Brown to a cooling jacket of the booster pump motor drive of AAPA / Shaefer / Houck for cooling purposes (paragraph [0006] of Brown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 9 of Applicant’s Response that “Thus, while Opfel discloses that greater vacuum/blower power can be provided by combining vacuum/blower motors in a single system, it fails to disclose that a single system would include multiple vacuum/blower motors that are selectively coupleable to provide a system in which additional power can be selectively applied based on the immediate needs of the system”.
Examiner’s Response: First of all, Opfel clearly discloses “to provide a system in which additional power can be selectively applied based on the immediate needs of the system” in paragraph [0042]: “those of ordinary skill in the art will be able to determine the vacuum and blower powers needed for a particular cleaning system”. Claims 15 and 32 are apparatus claims, and “selectively coupling the booster pump to the hydraulics motor drive” is only a manner of operation of the clutch (24a) of Houck (engagement or disengagement of the clutch) or the pressure sensitive electric switch (52) of Angell (turning the switch on or off based on pressure) in the modified apparatus constructed by the examiner, which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – see MPEP 2114-II. Although Claim 26 is a method claim, there are no patentably distinct method steps, and it has been held that under the principles of inherency (MPEP 2112.02, Section I), if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Opfel clearly discloses that greater combined power can be provided by combining pump-motors in a single system, therefore selective coupling is performed by the prior art in its normal/usual operation. In any case, it is known to selectively couple two pumps to provide flow over greater distances if one pump is not sufficient as taught by the newly cited reference Fowler (paragraph [0025]: “For example, the longer the distance between pump stations, the more pumps at the pump station may be required in order to provide flow”) as discussed in the above rejection.
Applicant has argued on Page 10 of Applicant’s Response that “The electric and hydraulic motors of Angell's booster pump do not provide the main pump with extra power, nor does the main pump (or its motivator) provide the booster pump with extra power”.
Examiner’s Response: By definition, an electric motor generates power. The power generated by the hydraulic motor alone is insufficient at low pressures, that is why extra power is provided by the electric motor until a specific pressure is reached.
Applicant has argued on Page 12 of Applicant’s Response that “Houck thus discloses an arrangement in which two drives can be coupled together to power a separate device (the "draw works"). The function of the "draw works" is completely unrelated to the operation and function of the mud pumps (42A, 42B)”.
Examiners Response: The same engine shaft that drives the draw works also drives the pump (42B) as clearly stated in Column 2, Lines 32 – 41: “The shaft carrying the sprocket 56 is direct coupled to the engine 14B through transmission 16B so that the draw works is always driven by the engine 14B. Simultaneously, the pump 42B can be driven through shaft 40B .. .. Thus, each engine directly drives one mud pump by means of the chains 34A, 34B “. When the combined power outputs of the two engines is provided to a shaft which drives the draw works (Abstract) the combined power is also provided to pump (42B) first before providing the combined power to the draw works. The combined power reaches the pump (42B) first via (22B/34B) before it reaches the draw works via (56).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights