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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered. The 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections are withdrawn based on the amendments.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections, the argues that Freed does not teach the amended limitation of claim 21. The examiner agrees as described in the rejection below. However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The applicant then argues that Florjancic cannot remedy the deficiencies of Freed as it has a surface that is not continuous. The examiner does not really upon Florjancic for teaching this aspect as it is disclosed by Freed. Only the shape of Freed is modified in the obviousness rejection below; Freed is not modified to have its surfaces separated. The applicant argues that Florjancic does not teach modifying its non-continuous geometry into a continuous geometry. This is not the obviousness analysis used in the rejection below. The teachings of Freed are not used to modify the disclosure of Florjancic.
The applicant further argues that the changing the inlet configuration from an in-line pump changes the principle of operation as it removes the advantages of an in-line pump. The examiner finds that making modifications to a design typically results in the removal of some benefits and the addition of other benefits. This does not mean that the principle of operation is changed. Florjancic provides different inlet configuration embodiments and recognizes that they are different ways the invention can be practiced. In contrast, there is no evidence in Florjancic that these different inlet configurations change the principle of operation. Furthermore, for similar reasons as above, this modification does not render the modified pump as unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as argued by applicant.
Any changes to the grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment; therefore the rejections are final.
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.
Claims 24, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed et al. (U.S Patent 3,324,798) hereinafter Freed in view of Florjancic et al. (U.S Patent 4,177,008) hereinafter Florjancic.
PNG
media_image1.png
561
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Freed discloses:
A pump casing {Figure 2 (20)} comprising:
a suction nozzle having a suction port {Annotated Figure 1 (21) is a suction nozzle with suction port (I)}; and
a volute portion connected to a connection portion of the suction nozzle {Annotated Figure 1 (23) is connected to connection portion (II) of the suction nozzle}, and
the volute portion having a volute chamber in which an impeller pressurizes the fluid, {Annotated Figure 1 (23) has a volute chamber that accommodates the impeller (77) which pressurizes the fluid; see MPEP 2112 and 2144.01},
the volute chamber configured to guide pressurized fluid toward a discharge port {Figure 2, the volute chamber guides the pressurized fluid toward discharge port (22)}
wherein a single continuous bottom surface of the volute chamber, formed integrally with the casing, slopes downward from a peripheral portion of the volute chamber proximate an outer radial edge of an impeller and to the connection portion {Annotated Figure 1, the bottom surface of the volute chamber slopes downward from the outer radial edge of the impeller (IV) to the connection portion (II). The bottom surface of the volute chamber (23) is also formed integrally with the casing (20)},
the bottom surface sloping continuously downward from the peripheral portion to the connection portion such that the bottom surface declines along its entire length so that the volute portion continuously slopes from the peripheral portion to a lowest end of the connection portion {Annotated Figure 1, the slope from the outer radial edge of the impeller (IV) to the connection portion (II) is along this entire length and is continuously downward}.
Freed does not teach:
wherein the suction nozzle slopes continuously downward from the connection portion to the suction port.
wherein the single continuous bottom surface of the volute chamber has a monotonically decreasing elevation from a peripheral portion to the suction port
PNG
media_image2.png
521
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Florjancic pertains to centrifugal pump configurations. Florjancic teaches:
wherein the suction nozzle slopes continuously downward from the connection portion to the suction port {Annotated Figure 2, both the centerline and bottom surface of (102’) and (102’’) slope continuously downward from the connection portion (II) to the suction port (I)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the suction nozzle of Freed have a continuously downward sloping geometry as taught by Florjancic . One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as suction nozzles that continuously slope downward and those that include upward slopes are known alternative geometries for centrifugal pumps {Florjancic, see Figures 2 and 3}. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the upward sloped shape of Figure 3 of Florjancic and the configuration of Freed reduces the distance between the planes of the inlet and the outlet {Florjancic Column 6 27-35}, but may still desire other the flow characteristics of an suction pipe with the geometry of Florjancic shown in Figure 2.
The combination of Freed and Florjancic therefore teaches:
wherein the single continuous bottom surface of the volute chamber has a monotonically decreasing elevation from a peripheral portion to the suction port {Freed monotonically decreases in elevation form a peripheral portion to the connection portion. The configuration of Freed is modified based on the teachings of Florjancic to have a suction nozzle that continuously slopes downward. When modified by these teachings, the entire integral surface of (23) and (20) of Freed from the peripheral portion to the suction port decreases in elevation monotonically}
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Freed and Florjancic further teaches:
wherein the suction port is arranged at a position lower than a discharge port of the pump casing {Florjancic in Annotated Figure 2 has the suction port (I) at a position lower than the discharge port (103). The modification of the geometry of the suction pipe of Freed to being continuously downward based on the teachings of Florjancic results in the suction port of Freed being arranged at a position lower than a discharge port of Freed formed by (22)}
wherein the discharge port discharges the pressurized fluid {Freed Figure 2 (22) is where the fluid pressurized by the impeller / volute is discharged; Column 2 lines 60-63}
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Freed and Florjancic further teaches:
wherein the suction port is arranged below the volute portion {Florjancic in Annotated Figure 2 has the suction port (I) arranged below the volute portion with is partially defined by the region near (106). The modification of the geometry of the suction pipe of Freed to being continuously downward based on the teachings of Florjancic results in the suction port (I) of Freed being arranged below the volute portion (23)}, and
wherein a work space for connecting the suction nozzle to the suction pipe is formed between the volute portion and the suction nozzle {Annotated Figure 1 (III) is space where the suction nozzle (21) is connected to the suction pipe (13). It is noted that the claim does not positively a suction pipe. It is noted the modification described in the rejection of claim 24 would lower (21) such that there would be increased space between the volute portion and the suction nozzle. All that is required is that there is a work space that can perform a function of connecting the suction nozzle to a suction pipe. The claim is a product claim and is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, see MPEP 2113 I. The claim is also a functional limitation as discussed in MPEP 2173.05(g)}.
Regarding claim 29, Freed further discloses:
A pump apparatus {Figure 1 (10)} comprising:
an impeller {Figure 2 (77)};
a rotational shaft fixed to the impeller {Figure 2,(78) is fixed to (77)};
a motor configured to rotate the rotational shaft {Figure 2 (36)}; and
a pump casing according to claim 24 {see the rejection of claim 24},
the pump casing housing the impeller {Figure 2 (20) which includes (23) houses (77)}.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed in view of Florjancic as applied to claim 24 above, and in further view of Kenta et al. (JP2018091160) hereinafter Kenta.
PNG
media_image3.png
557
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Freed further discloses:
comprising a leg portion for support {Column 1 lines 18-21 and line 71- Column 2 line 4}.
Freed is silent that the leg portion is connected to the pump casing.
Kenta pertains to liquid centrifugal pumps . Kenta teaches:
comprising a leg portion connected to the pump casing {Annotated Figure 3 (VI), underneath (16) which is a part of the pump casing as claimed}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use legs connected to the pump casing of Freed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as even though Freed’s design does not require permanent legs, these legs are able to react the loads of the pump and support the weight of the features without adverse vibrations/deformations {Freed Column 1 lines 18-21 and line 71- Column 2 line 4}.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed in view of Florjancic and Kenta as applied to claim 30 above, and in further view of Kazuya et al. (JP2018115570) hereinafter Kazuya.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Freed, Florjancic, and Kenta teaches the pump apparatus of claim 30 and wherein the leg portion forms a space below a suction flange portion having the suction port {Kenta Annotated Figure 3, there is a space (V) below the suction flange portion having the suction port (II). The above citations point to the figures of Kenta, but would be substantially identical in configuration to the space that is formed by the combination of Freed, Florjancic, and Kenta}.
The combination of Freed, Florjancic, and Kenta is silent regarding the space arranging a drain pan configured to catch a liquid discharged from the suction port.
Kazuya pertains to liquid centrifugal pumps. Kazuya teaches:
the space arranging a drain pan configured to catch a liquid discharged from the suction port {Figure 10 (332) is a drain pan that catches liquid discharged from the suction port, it covers the whole area under (38) and to the right; [0070]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a drain pan in the space of the combination of Freed, Florjancic, and Kenta to catch liquid from the suction port. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to prevent pumped fluid from leaking into an uncontained area Kazuya [0072]; Freed is used for pumping chemicals as discussed in Column 1 lines 13-16,which may be hazardous}.
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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745