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) 20, 22-23, 32-35, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/130718 (herein Krampe) in view of Kallenbach et al (US PGPub No. 2020/0222606).
A machine translation of Krampe was provided with the previous office action and is relied upon herein.
Krampe teaches:
limitations from claims 20, 35, and 37-38, an eccentric screw pump/method (FIG. 4), comprising: a pump housing (14, 20) having a pump inlet opening (10) and a pump outlet opening (~20); a stator (2) disposed in the pump housing; a rotor (4) disposed in the stator, wherein the rotor is adapted for rotational movement about a rotating axis and is guided in the stator to pump a medium (paragraph 53); a drive unit comprising a drive motor (36) and a drive shaft (26) transmitting a torque and connecting the drive motor to the rotor (paragraph 55); and a state sensor (62) for detecting a state variable of the eccentric screw pump (paragraph 63); wherein the state sensor is disposed within the rotor or within the drive shaft (paragraph 63; “…this sensor or an additional one can be arranged in the rotor 4…”);
Krampe teaches that the signals from sensor (62) are provided to a receiver (58) via signal lines (56, 60; paragraph 63), rather than a wireless connection receiving power from an energy converter;
Kallenbach teaches a pump (3) including a rotor (9) within a casing (12), a sensor (15, 16, 17) for detecting a variable of the pump (paragraph 53-54, which includes a temperature sensor) and mounted to the rotor (FIG. 3 for example); and wherein the sensor is connected to a state sensor data transmission module (19) for wirelessly transmitting state data to a data receiver outside the pump (paragraph 28, 59, 85); and wherein: the state sensor (15-17) and the state sensor data transmission module are connected to an energy converter (13) disposed on the rotor or on the drive shaft and configured for converting kinetic energy acting on the energy converter into electric energy based on electromagnetic induction (FIG. 3; paragraph 55);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to utilize wireless sensors for the temperature sensor of Krampe, such as taught by Kallenbach, in order to provide parameter readings of the pump internal components without the need for intrusive wiring. Further the use of integral energy converters reduces the need for wiring or power sources such as batteries to power the wireless sensors.
Krampe further teaches:
limitations from claim 22, wherein: the drive shaft further comprises a wobble shaft (26) which at an end thereof that points toward the drive motor (36) is connected to the drive motor for rotation about a drive axis (at universal join 30); and at an end thereof that points toward the rotor (4) is connected to the rotor for rotation about a rotor axis and for a superimposed rotation about a stator axis spaced apart from the rotor axis (at universal joint 28; paragraph 55);
limitations from claim 23, wherein the wobble shaft has a wobble shaft central portion (26), a first universal joint (30), and a second universal joint (28), wherein: the first universal joint is inserted between the wobble shaft central portion and the drive motor (36); and the second universal joint is inserted between the wobble shaft central portion and the rotor (4; FIG. 4; paragraph 55);
limitations from claim 33, further comprising two state sensors disposed on two mutually spaced apart positions disposed on the rotor, and the positions have a phase shift of a measured state variable (see paragraph 16 teaching the measuring of temperature at several points; see also FIG. 3 of Kallenbach in which sensors are place at various locations along a pump rotor);
limitations from claim 34, wherein the state sensor comprises: a temperature sensor (62; paragraph 63); a pressure sensor (paragraph 35); a vibration sensor; or an acceleration sensor (paragraph);
Kallenbach further teaches:
limitations from claim 32, wherein the energy converter (13) is selected from: a converter based on an electromagnetic induction principle, which converts a relative rotating movement of the rotor or of the drive shaft in relation to a pump housing into electric energy (paragraph 19-23);
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/130718 (herein Krampe) in view of Kallenbach et al (US PGPub No. 2020/0222606) as applied to claim 20 above, and in further view of McGirr et al (US Patent No. 5,736,937).
Krampe further teaches:
limitations from claim 26, wherein the state sensor (62) is connected to an electronic evaluation unit (58) and the electronic evaluation unit is configured for: determining a variance of an actual state detected by the state sensor by the state sensor data from a predetermined target state; comparing this determined variance with a predetermined permissible variance; and when the determined variance exceeds the permissible variance (paragraphs 16, 31);
limitations from claim 27, wherein the electronic evaluation unit is configured for: receiving a state sensor signal as the actual state; and comparing the state sensor signal with a stored normal state sensor signal as the target state, wherein the electronic evaluation is further configured for: calculating the determined variance as the difference between the state sensor signal and the stored normal state sensor signal; utilizing a predetermined permissible variance value as the predetermined permissible variance (paragraphs 16, 31);
Krampe does not teach the use of an alarm signal when thresholds are surpassed;
However, McGirr teaches a wireless shaft monitoring apparatus for a compressor (C. 1 Lines 22-24 and C. 2 Lines 16-24); and wherein an alarm indicating a particular condition is utilized (C. 10 Lines 33-43);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide an alarm in the apparatus of Krampe, as taught by Kallenbach, in order to clearly indicate to the user the condition of the pump.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/130718 (herein Krampe) in view of Kallenbach et al (US PGPub No. 2020/0222606) as applied to claims 20 and 22-23 above, and in further view of Marz (US Patent No. 5,603,608).
Krampe teaches two universal joints (30, 28), but does not teach boots about the joints, or pressure sensing within the boots;
Marz teaches a rotary pump (FIG. 7) including a rotor (5), stator (15), and drive shaft (6A-C), the drive shaft including first and second universal joints (8A, 8B), and:
limitations from claim 25, wherein the first universal joint (8A) is enclosed by a first sealing boot (17) and the second universal joint (8B) is enclosed by a second sealing boot (17; C. 6 Lines 46-57); and in that, for detecting the pressure in the first and/or second sealing boot, a pressure line (27) is routed into the first and/or the second sealing boot or into the sealing sleeve (see FIG. 3), and a pressure sensor (~33) is fluidically connected to the pressure line; and the pressure sensor for signal transmission is connected to an evaluation unit (~35; see also the controller of Krampe) and the pressure sensor is configured for detecting the pressure within the first and/or the second sealing boot (C. 7 Line 55 through C. 8 Line 2) in order to create a safer pump with improved lubrication;
Claim(s) 26-31 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/130718 (herein Krampe) in view of Kallenbach et al (US PGPub No. 2020/0222606) as applied to claim 20 above, and in further view of Zhang et al (US PGPub No. 2018/0223831).
Krampe further teaches:
limitations from claim 26, wherein the state sensor (62) is connected to an electronic evaluation unit (58) and the electronic evaluation unit is configured for: determining a variance of an actual state detected by the state sensor by the state sensor data from a predetermined target state; comparing this determined variance with a predetermined permissible variance; and when the determined variance exceeds the permissible variance (paragraphs 16, 31);
Krampe does not teach the use of an alarm signal when thresholds are surpassed;
Zhang teaches a pump monitoring system including a sensor for monitoring a speed of the pump (paragraph 5 for example); and wherein:
limitations from claim 26, wherein the state sensor (63) is connected to an electronic evaluation unit (controller 61) and the electronic evaluation unit is configured for: determining a variance of an actual state detected by the state sensor by the state sensor data from a predetermined target state (paragraph 48); comparing this determined variance with a predetermined permissible variance; and when the determined variance exceeds the permissible variance, emitting an alarm (77) signal (paragraph 48);
limitations from claim 27, wherein the electronic evaluation unit (61) is configured for: receiving a state sensor signal (63) as the actual state; and comparing the state sensor signal with a stored normal state sensor signal as the target state (“speed variation threshold”), wherein the electronic evaluation is further configured for: calculating the determined variance as the difference between the state sensor signal and the stored normal state sensor signal (paragraph 28, 48); utilizing a predetermined permissible variance value as the predetermined permissible variance; and emitting an alarm signal (77) as a value alarm signal (paragraph 48);
limitations from claim 28, wherein the electronic evaluation unit (61) is configured for: receiving state sensor signals (63); determining from at least two temporally sequential state sensor signals a state variation value as the actual state (paragraph 5 for example; the variation in speed requires multiple measurements); and comparing the state variation value with a stored normal state variation value as the target state, wherein the electronic evaluation is further configured for: calculating the determined variance as a difference between the state variation value and the stored normal state variation value (paragraph 28, 48); utilizing a predetermined permissible variance variation value as the predetermined permissible variance; and emitting a variation alarm signal (77) as the alarm signal (paragraph 48);
limitations from claim 29, wherein the electronic evaluation unit (61) is configured for: receiving state sensor signals (63); determining from at least three temporally sequential state sensor signals a state variation speed as the actual state (paragraph 5 for example; the variation in speed requires multiple measurements); and comparing the state variation speed with a stored normal state variation speed as the target state (paragraph 28, 48), wherein the electronic evaluation is further configured for: calculating the determined variance as the difference between the state variation speed and the stored normal state variation speed (paragraph 28, 48); utilizing a predetermined permissible speed variance as the predetermined permissible variance; and emitting a variation speed alarm signal (77) as the alarm signal (paragraph 48);
limitations from claim 30, wherein the electronic evaluation unit is configured for: comparing a plurality of temporally sequential actual states with a plurality of temporally sequential target states (paragraph 5 for example; the variation in speed requires multiple measurements); calculating from the comparison a variance characteristic value as the determined variance; and utilizing a predetermined permissible variance characteristic value (“speed variation threshold”) as the predetermined permissible variance (paragraph 28, 48)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to utilize a method of monitoring parameters over time (temporally) in the pump system of Krampe, as taught by Zhang, in order to alert the user of potential pump failure due to changes in operating parameters over time.
Krampe further teaches:
limitations from claims 31 and 36, wherein the eccentric screw pump has a rotor having a conical envelope and a conically tapered stator interior (paragraph 2), and the rotor and the stator are adjustable relative to one another in the axial direction by an axial actuating drive (39), and wherein the electronic evaluation unit for signal transmission is connected to the axial actuating drive and configured for: actuating the actuating drive so as to carry out an axial adjustment between the rotor and the stator (paragraphs 55, 58-59, 63); and detecting during the axial adjustment procedure a plurality of temporally sequential state sensor signals of the state sensor (paragraphs 72-73);
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner will address the applicant’s arguments in the order provided in the response.
1. Applicant argues that Krampe’s sensor 62 is provided in the stator and is therefore stationary, and as such does not present a problem prompting one of ordinary skill to seek wireless solutions. However, the examiner notes that Krampe teaches the sensor 62 can also be located in the rotor 4, which is a non-stationary part. Applicant argues that this portion of Krampe (Page 14 of the response) does not teach how signals could be transmitted (for example wirelessly) in this arrangement, the examiner agrees, but has relied upon Kallenbach to teach wireless signal transmissions in rotating pumps.
2. Applicant states “…the Examiner has improperly rejected independent claims 20, 35, 37, and 38 by relying on non-analogous art, by merely showing that separate components of the claimed invention were independently known in the prior art, and using conclusory statements to improperly deem features of the claimed invention obvious. The applicant does not elaborate on this statement, the examiner disagrees at least because the motivation statements were not conclusory but provided articulated reasoning one of ordinary skill would make the proposed modification.
3. Applicant argues that the prior art to Kallenbach is not analogous art. Applicant argues that Kallenbach teaches a pump that can be applied “advantageously to the field of medical technology” (Page 19 of the response), and as such is not in the same field of endeavor as the instant application (eccentric screw pumps). The examiner disagrees. The examiner does not agree that the field of endeavor is so narrow as “eccentric screw pumps”, but more fairly extends in some respects to all pumps, but at least to other rotary pumps. Kallenbach teaches a rotary pump using a screw, features of such a pump are readily applicable to other rotary pumps. See MPEP 2141.01 Section IV, in which items such as a toothbrush and hairbrush (classified differently) were held to be analogous to one another. The examiner maintains that two rotary pumps are analogous.
While the examiner maintains that the prior art to Kallenbach is analogous as being in the same field of endeavor, the applicant’s arguments regarding the second prong of analogousness have been considered and are not found persuasive. Applicant states:
Regarding the present invention’s problem:
“There is, therefore, a requirement for monitoring the state on eccentric screw pumps, by way of which the disadvantages of the previously known detection modes of operating parameters of the eccentric screw pump are overcome and which permits a more spontaneous and more accurate control of an eccentric screw pump in order to avoid states of wear.” and
Regarding the prior art problem (Kallenbach):
”It would be desirable to develop a pump for delivering body fluids, concerning which the measurement of the flow forces and turbulence of the blood flow is improved for recognizing the pump performance capability. In particular, it would be desirable to be able to better predict or recognize one or more of the following parameters: condition of the pump, clots on the rotor and in the region of the pump, condition of the rotor mounting and pump service life.”
The bold portions above clearly overlap in scope with one another as it pertains problems that may be solved by each invention, namely the monitoring of pump condition (wear).
Applicant further argues that the combination of Krampe and Kallenbach would change the principal of operation of Krampe, particularly the sensor member 62. The examiner disagrees. Applicant states “Such a modification would require installation of the sensor 62 of Krampe on the rotor 4, not the stator 2”; However, the examiner notes that Krampe explicitly discloses this embodiment: “For this purpose, the sensor 62 can either detect the outer surface of the rotor 4, or this sensor or an additional can be arranged in the rotor 4.”. Applicant further states “…rotor 4, not the stator 2. It would require providing an independent power source for the sensor 62. It would require providing means for sensor data transmission from the rotor 4 to an external location without using signal lines”; However, neither of these modifications prevent the sensor from operating as intended, which is to monitor characteristics of the rotor/fluid flow (this is clear at least in part because Kallenbach also provides sensors on the rotor in combination with these elements).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case the benefits of wireless technology are well known, the principal benefit being the reduction of wires in an assembly; Krampe in particular places the sensor in the rotor and would require connections to locations outside of the rotating body, an instance wherein the reduction of wiring would be particularly beneficial.
In response to applicant's argument that the energy conversion between the prior art are incompatible, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Lastly, the examiner agrees that the prior art used to reject the dependent claims do not teach the limitations of the independent claims. However, at this time, none of those prior art references have been applied to claims 20, 35, or 37-38.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights