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 remarks filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, and prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections/rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of independent claim 5, from the bottom of page 5 through paragraph 5 of page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 5.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., "the outer seal surface (92) extends along an entirety of a maximum axial length of the front shroud (74)" per para 2 of page 6) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification and/or arguments are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments from paragraph 6 of page 6 through paragraph 3 of page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks are the same arguments previously presented in the remarks filed 9/19/2025 (see, for example, para 2 of page 8 through para 2 of page 12 in the remarks filed 9/19/2025). These arguments have already been fully addressed in the previous office action and identified as not persuasive. Also, some of these arguments are directed towards now-cancelled claim 19 (see, for example, para 3 of page 10 in the instant arguments which identifies the claim limitation “a minimum radius of the eye” which is a limitation of former claim 19); such arguments are not commensurate with the instant claim set.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 (line 21) recites the limitation “an entirety of of” which is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten as -- an entirety of --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 16 identifies “the axially extending annular sealing clearance (102) and the second sealing clearance (110) extend along an entirety of the maximum axial length of the front shroud (74) and an entirety of a respective maximum axial length of each of the vanes (72)” whereas the original disclosure does not identify such. The specification does not identify as such. See Annotated Applicant Fig 2, for example, which shows that the axially extending annular sealing clearance (102; Fig 4A) and the second sealing clearance (110; Fig 4A) do NOT extend along an entirety of the maximum axial length of the front shroud (74) and an entirety of a respective maximum axial length of each of the vanes (72).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Applicant Fig 2
There is no support in the original disclosure for the limitation(s) as claimed.
Therefore, the limitation(s) add(s) new matter and fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement wherein it appears this invention has not been described with sufficient particularity in the original disclosure such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/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 16 recites the limitation “the maximum axial length” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a maximum axial length --.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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) 5, 6, 10, 12, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art shown in Applicant’s Figure 1 (hereinafter Muller) in view of WO 2008083907 A1 (Koeppler).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
Examiner's note: For the purposes of examining this patent application, the examiner's submitted English translation of Koeppler, submitted with the office action mailed on 4/11/2025, is referenced hereinafter.
Examiner's note: Applicant’s Fig 1 is prior art and is used as the base reference for the rejection below. Regarding mapping the claim to Applicant’s Fig 1: Since Applicant’s Fig 2 (invention) is so similar to Applicant’s Fig 1 (prior art), certain obvious elements, such as the casing and the eye of the impeller, for example, are not each explicitly identified within the annotated version of Applicant’s Fig 1 below, as it follows that if Fig 2 clearly shows a casing and an eye of an impeller, then Fig 1 also clearly shows a casing and an eye of an impeller.
PNG
media_image2.png
600
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1a
Regarding claim 5, Muller discloses:
A centrifugal slurry pump which includes
a casing (Fig 1) which bounds a part of
a volute (Fig 1) inside the casing,
an impeller (Fig 1) mounted on a shaft (Fig 1) in the volute, for rotation about an axis (Fig 1),
the impeller including a centrally positioned eye (Fig 1),
a front shroud (annotated Fig 1a)
and a plurality of vanes (Fig 1) on the front shroud which extend radially outwardly from the eye,
and a structure (Fig 1; the entire structure of continuous material pointed to by the leader line of reference character 36) which is mounted to the casing and which is configured to supply a slurry to be pumped into the eye (Fig 1 shows all this; Applicant’s own disclosure page 1 identifies Fig 1 is a pump for slurry),
wherein the structure includes
a tube (annotated Fig 1a) which is centered on the axis,
a radially extending flange (annotated Fig 1a) which is integrally formed with the tube and which forms a front liner (Fig 1 shows this),
which bounds a part of the volute (Fig 1),
and which has an inner surface (annotated Fig 1a) which extends along a majority of a maximum radial length (annotated Fig 1a) of each of the vanes on the front shroud (Fig 1 shows this)
and wherein a section of the tube which protrudes from the flange has an integrally formed outer seal surface (annotated Fig 1a) which extends circumferentially around the axis, and which extends, at least partly, into the eye (Fig 1 shows all this),
and the front shroud includes an inner seal surface (annotated Fig 1a) which extends circumferentially around at least a part of the eye (Fig 1 shows this),
and is radially spaced from and opposes the outer seal surface (Fig 1 shows this),
whereby an axially extending annular sealing clearance (annotated Fig 1a) which is formed between the outer seal surface and the inner seal surface (Fig 1 shows this), and a second sealing clearance (30; Fig 1) which extends outwardly (radially outward) from the axially extending annular sealing clearance (Fig 1 shows this) are configured to inhibit the slurry, entering through the tube, from readily flowing from the eye through the sealing clearances to the vanes on the front shroud (Fig 1 shows this, also by Applicant’s own admission in para 0004 this arrangement of Fig 1 forms a labyrinth seal) characterized in that the outer seal surface extends along all of an axial length (annotated Fig 1b; note that any arbitrary axial length may be identified) of the front shroud.
Muller may not explicitly disclose:
the outer seal surface is parallel to the axis.
the inner seal surface is parallel to the axis.
However, Koeppler, in the same field of endeavor, centrifugal pumps, teaches:
A configuration in Fig 1 which is directed towards improving centrifugal pumps which “often have the disadvantage of an annoying gap flow, which adversely affects the flow" (lines 21-32) by aligning the recirculating medium in “almost the same flow direction” as the medium flow at the impeller inlet so that flow resistance at the impeller inlet is minimized (lines 52-58). Annotated Fig 1c shows Koeppler’s disclosure re-oriented and cropped to correspond with Muller’s Fig 1 and more-clearly show how Koeppler’s teaching may be incorporated into Muller’s structure.
This modification may be performed by reconfiguring Muller’s impeller and tube as shown in Annotated Fig 1c. This modification results in teaching the limitations above.
Regarding the limitation “characterized in that the outer seal surface extends along an entirety of an axial length of the front shroud”, note that, as identified above with regard to Muller, any arbitrary axial length of the front shroud may be identified such that the outer seal surface extends along an entirety of an axial length of the front shroud. Annotated Fig 1c shows that the outer seal surface extends along an entirety of an axial length of the front shroud.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller to include Koeppler’s teachings as described above, having the outer seal surface be parallel to the axis, in order to minimize adverse flow at the impeller inlet (lines 21-32, lines 52-58).
PNG
media_image3.png
263
276
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1b
PNG
media_image4.png
421
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1c
Regarding claim 6, Muller, as modified above, discloses:
the axially extending annular sealing clearance is a cylindrical gap between the outer seal surface and the inner seal surface which are spaced apart and which are parallel to each other and which are coaxial with the axis (Koeppler Fig 1 shows all this).
Regarding claim 10, Muller, as modified above, discloses:
the axially extending annular sealing clearance provides a seal which is insensitive to the axial distance between the inner surface of the front liner and opposing radial surfaces of the front shroud (Koeppler Fig 1 shows all this, as the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s configuration).
Regarding claim 12, Muller, as modified above, discloses:
the structure is retrofitted (functional language),
and the axially extending annular sealing clearance provides a seal which is insensitive to the axial distance between the inner surface of the front liner and opposing radial surfaces of the front shroud (Koeppler Fig 1 shows all this, as the configuration is analogous to Applicant’s configuration)
such that axial adjustment of the front liner relative to the front shroud, when the structure is being retrofitted, is not required (functional language).
Examiner’s note: Regarding limitations identified as “functional language”:
Courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
It has also been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
In this case, the device in the prior art reference has all the necessary structure and therefore performs the claimed function in the same manner as Applicant’s device. Since the prior art discloses all of the same structural elements which Applicant claims, the prior art structure would be expected to perform the same as Applicant’s structure, the prior art’s structure, including the liner, can be disassembled and can be removed or replaced, wherein this can be performed as a retrofit procedure to a pump which can be retrofitted, same as Applicant’s structure.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Muller, as modified above, discloses:
the axially extending annular sealing clearance and the second sealing clearance extend along an entirety of the maximum axial length of the front shroud and an entirety of a respective maximum axial length of each of the vanes (See related 112a rejection above; also, Annotated Fig 1a combined with Annotated Fig 1c show that the prior art’s configuration is analogous to Applicant’s, wherein, within both configurations, the combination of the axially extending annular sealing clearance and the second sealing clearance extend analogously along an axial length of the front shroud and an axial length of each of the vanes).
Regarding claim 18, Muller, as modified above, discloses:
the inner seal surface extends from a first edge (a left-most extent of the inner seal surface shown in annotated Fig 1c, wherein the left-most extent is not explicitly shown in annotated Fig 1c but inherently must exist in Muller Fig 1) which is adjacent to the eye and a second edge (right-most extent of the inner seal surface shown in annotated Fig 1c) which is adjacent to the flange, and wherein the eye, adjacent said first edge has a diameter (annotated Fig 1a, shown as a radius; identified to be analogous with Applicant’s “Diameter of Eye” shown in annotated Fig 2 in the remarks filed on 9/16/2025; note that a broadest reasonable interpretation of “adjacent” may be “not distant; nearby” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent; note that the diameter may be identified relatively arbitrarily as currently claimed) which is larger than a diameter of the inner seal surface at said second edge (shown by Muller Fig 1 combined with annotated Fig 1c).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Koeppler and US 20210254630 A1 (hereinafter Moscoso).
Regarding claim 17, Muller, as modified above, discloses:
the section includes a discharge outlet (Annotated Fig 1c)
Muller may not explicitly disclose:
the discharge outlet has a rounded inner surface such that a passage which extends through the tube increases in radial dimension as the passage extends axially towards the eye
and terminates in a portion of the outer seal surface which is parallel to the axis.
However, Moscoso, in the same field of endeavor, pumps, teaches:
In Figs 3, 4 (unlabeled but shown in Fig 4), 6, an analogous insert/structure for a slurry pump which has a curved lip 38 at an end 35 of the tube portion, which has the effect of increasing the diameter of the outlet at the end 35, as it terminates at an edge 62, wherein the curve matches the fluid flow contour of the curved blades (Fig 4) in order to, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand, having a basic understanding of fluid dynamics, create a smooth transition region promoting laminar fluid flow, between the insert and blades. Note that Muller also shows that his blades have a curve (where the fluid flow transitions from axial to radial), thus Muller’s design would also benefit from having Moscoso’s curve at the tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller to include Moscoso’s teachings as described above, having the discharge outlet has a rounded inner surface such that a passage which extends through the tube increases in radial dimension as the passage extends axially towards the eye, in order to create a laminar fluid flow between the tube and the blades. Incorporated into Koeppler’s configuration, Moscoso’s curved lip 38 would terminate at an edge which meets Koeppler’s outer seal surface, wherein Koeppler’s outer seal surface is parallel to the axis.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights