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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to Applicant’s remark that “During the interview, the examiner indicated that the proposed amendment appeared to overcome the rejection. However, in the interview summary, the examiner indicates that the remaining text is still objected to.” Examiner notes that Examiner explicitly discussed with Applicant’s Attorney on the day of the 3/3/2026 interview that the proposed amendments appeared to overcome the prior 112(b) issues (per a cursory review and pending a more detailed review), and that the prior 112(a) issue persists.
Regarding the prior claim objections, 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections/rejections.
Regarding the prior 112(a) rejection, in page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that 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). Respectfully the arguments are not persuasive because Fig 4a of the application’s drawings do not show this, para 0021-0022 do not appear to support this. Fig 4a of the application’s drawings do not define the lengths at issue as Applicant asserts in Applicant’s arguments. The rejection is therefore maintained. The deficiency as recited in the claim is illustrated in Annotated Applicant Fig 2 in the office action below. Annotated Applicant Fig 2 has been updated to correspond with Applicant’s additional related information provided in the instant reply. Also, please note that if Applicant is going to define an arbitrary length of a feature, wherein the arbitrary length is not the feature’s actual maximum length in the corresponding direction, and Applicant refers to the arbitrary length as a “maximum length”, this may result in subsequent objections. In such a circumstance, it is suggested that Applicant refer to the arbitrary length as a “length” of the feature rather than a “maximum length” of the feature.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 5, in paragraph 2 of page 7 through paragraph 6 of page 11 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.
In response to applicant’s arguments against the Muller 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). In this particular case, the prior rejection of claim 5 relied on a combination of Muller as modified by Tessier. Applicant’s arguments directed at Muller in view of Tessier are moot in light of the new 103 rejections below; please see the action below for details of the new rejections.
Regarding the new claims 20 and 21, please see the action below for any relevant details.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“the axially extending annular sealing clearance (102) and the second sealing clearance (110) extend along an entirety of a maximum axial length of the front shroud (74) and an entirety of a respective maximum axial length of each of the vanes (72)” identified in claim 16. Note that Applicant appears to have attempted to define claimed terms in figures contained within the Remarks document filed 3/10/2026. The requirement is for the figures contained within the application’s Drawings document to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Also, please note that if Applicant is going to define an arbitrary length of a feature, wherein the arbitrary length is not the feature’s maximum length in the corresponding direction, and Applicant refers to that as a “maximum length”, this may result in subsequent objections. In such a circumstance, it is suggested that Applicant refer to the arbitrary length as a “length” of the feature rather than a “maximum length” of the feature.
Note that 35 U.S.C. 113 identifies the requirement for drawings to be generally provided (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) identifies requirements for what those drawings must show (“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s note: Regarding the term “substantially constant” (e.g. claim 1 lines 17, 27), it is assumed that this term refers to structure which is constant and that this term simply allows for slight deviation related to things like manufacturing/assembly/operational tolerances. If this term instead referred to a more substantial deviation, then this would result in a 112(b) rejection for this term being a relative term which renders the claim indefinite because this term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to identify whether elements are substantially constant or not substantially constant.
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
677
712
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) 5, 6, 10, 12, 16-18, 20-21 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 5 (line 16) recites the limitation “the vane” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the vanes --.
Claim 5 (line 17) recites the limitation “the radial length of the inner surface” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a radial length of the inner surface --.
Claim 5 (line 18) recites the limitation “the radial length of each of the vanes” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a radial length of each of the vanes --.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 12, 16-18, 20-21 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 US 5156522 A (Tessier).
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: 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
597
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Muller Fig 1a
Regarding claim 5, Muller discloses:
A centrifugal slurry pump comprising:
a casing which bounds a part of a volute inside the casing (Fig 1 shows all this),
an impeller mounted on a shaft in the volute, for rotation about an axis (Fig 1 shows all this),
the impeller including
a centrally positioned eye (Fig 1),
a front shroud (Annotated Muller Fig 1a)
and a plurality of vanes on the front shroud which extend radially outwardly from the eye (Fig 1 shows this),
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 (78) includes
a tube (Annotated Muller Fig 1a) which is centered on the axis,
a radially extending flange (Annotated Muller Fig 1a) which is integrally formed with the tube and forms a front liner (Fig 1 shows this),
the radially extending flange bounds a part of the volute (Fig 1 shows this),
and has an inner surface (Annotated Muller Fig 1a) extending along a majority of a maximum radial length (Annotated Muller Fig 1a) of each of the vanes on the front shroud (Fig 1 shows this),
the inner surface being spaced from the vane an axial distance (clearance 30 within the vertical portion of the channel in Fig 1) measured parallel to the axis,
the axial distance being substantially constant along a majority of the radial length of the inner surface and along the radial length of each of the vanes (Fig 1 shows that clearance 30, marked by xxx, is as such),
Muller may not explicitly disclose:
wherein a section of the tube protrudes from the flange axially into the eye,
the section has an integrally formed outer seal surface which extends circumferentially around the axis,
the outer seal surface is parallel to the axis and extends, at least partly, into the eye along a first axial length,
wherein the front shroud includes an inner seal surface which extends circumferentially around at least a part of the eye along the first axial length,
the inner seal surface is parallel to the axis, and opposes the outer seal surface,
the inner seal surface is spaced a radial distance from the outer seal surface,
the radial distance being measured perpendicular to the axis and being substantially constant along the first axial length,
whereby an axially extending annular sealing clearance is formed between the outer seal surface and the inner seal surface,
and a second sealing clearance extends outwardly from the axially extending annular sealing clearance,
wherein the axially extending annular sealing clearance and the second sealing clearance 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,
the axially extending annular sealing clearance and the second sealing clearance are also configured to inhibit slurry from returning to the tube from between the vanes on the front shroud and the inner surface of the radially extending flange,
wherein the outer seal surface extends along an entirety of a second axial length of the inner seal surface of the front shroud,
and wherein the axial distance is greater than the radial distance.
However, Tessier, in the same field of endeavor, centrifugal pumps, teaches:
Modifying the outlet (at the impeller eye) of a recirculating channel (A in Figs 2, 3, 6; compare Fig 2 or 3 to Fig 6), flowing along an impeller shroud (31), to include a relatively narrow clearance 51 by introducing structures 52 and 53, in order to have particular direction and high velocity of flow, high pressure differential, providing favorable transfer of kinetic energy (col 5 line 50 – col 6 line 18).
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 Tessier’s teachings as described above, having Muller’s outlet of the recirculating channel include a relatively narrow clearance 51 by introducing structures 52 and 53, in order to have particular direction and high velocity of flow, high pressure differential, providing favorable transfer of kinetic energy (col 5 line 50 – col 6 line 18).
This modification results in teaching the limitations above. Annotated Tessier Fig 6a and Annotated Muller Fig 1b identify structures of the limitations above per the modification. Annotated Fig 0 is a crude attempt at merging images from Muller and Tessier to crudely visualize the concept of the modification, it is merely a crude schematic as a visual aide and not to be relied upon heavily. Annotations of Tessier’s figures are flipped horizontally, to have the pump inlet at the right of the image instead of the left, to correspond with Muller’s Fig 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
309
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Tessier Fig 6a
PNG
media_image4.png
250
427
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Muller Fig 1b
PNG
media_image5.png
259
238
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 0
Insofar as Applicant may subsequently argue that Fig 1 does not disclose the following limitation because of the shape of the impeller shroud in Fig 1:
the axial distance being substantially constant along a majority of the radial length of the inner surface and along the radial length of each of the vanes,
It is noted that courts have established that a change in shape will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is a practice requiring only ordinary skill and hence is considered a routine expedient and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, just slightly changing the shape of the impeller shroud of Fig 1 would result in disclosing the elements of the limitation above. Any such slight change in shape is held to be obvious and not inventive. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). Also, it is well known in the art to have an impeller shroud and adjacent structure shaped to create an axial distance substantially constant along a majority of the length the vanes, see for example Fig 1 and Fig 2 in US 5411367 A, or Fig 1 in US 2766698 A, or Fig 2 in US 2444100 A.
Regarding the following limitations:
wherein the axially extending annular sealing clearance (102) and the second sealing clearance (110) are configured to inhibit the slurry, entering through the tube (80), from readily flowing from the eye (68) through the sealing clearances (102, 110) to the vanes (72) on the front shroud (74),
and
the axially extending annular sealing clearance (102) and the second sealing clearance (110) are also configured to inhibit slurry from returning to the tube (80) from between the vanes (72) on the front shroud (74) and the inner surface (86) of the radially extending flange (82),
These are each functional limitations. Courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does or how a device is intended to be employed. 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 sealing clearances being capable of inhibiting the slurry, entering through the tube, from readily flowing from the eye through the sealing clearances to the vanes on the front shroud; also the prior art’s sealing clearances being capable of inhibiting slurry from returning to the tube from between the vanes on the front shroud and the inner surface of the radially extending flange.
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, or intended result, 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 the limitations concerning “a first axial length” and “a second axial length”, it is noted these are not explicitly labeled in the figures, just as Applicant’s lengths are not labeled in Applicant’s figures, but they exist as required by the limitations, particularly as the prior art’s configuration of the associated structure is analogous to Applicant’ configuration.
Regarding the following limitation:
and wherein the axial distance is greater than the radial distance.
Tessier’s Fig 6 shows this and Tessier discusses the importance/benefits of this configuration, e.g. col 5 line 50 – col 6 line 18, identifying that this configuration produces particular direction and high velocity of flow, high pressure differential, providing favorable transfer of kinetic energy.
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 (Tessier Fig 6 shows 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 (Tessier Fig 6 combined with Muller 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 (Tessier Fig 6 combined with Muller 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 a 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, as may be seen in Tessier Fig 6 combined with Muller Fig 1, 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 (the downstream extent of 53 in Tessier Fig 6) which is adjacent to the eye and a second edge (the upstream extent of 53 in Tessier Fig 6) which is adjacent to the flange, and wherein the eye, adjacent said first edge has a diameter (Annotated Muller 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 (Tessier Fig 6 combined with Muller Fig 1).
Regarding claim 20, Muller, as modified above, discloses:
the axial distance is at least two times the radial distance (Tessier Fig 6 shows this).
Examiner’s note: Tessier’s drawings (i.e. Fig 6) are not relied upon for exact sizes. The drawings are relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the drawings are relied upon for general relative proportions which are fairly shown in the drawings. Tessier’s disclosure is directed towards controlling/minimizing flow recirculation effects at the impeller eye, thus, one having ordinary skill in the art may reasonably conclude that the drawings fairly show general relative proportions. See MPEP 2125. It is further noted that Applicant’s figures are also not identified as shown to scale, and that Applicant’s original specification, including para 0024, does not explicitly identify that the axial distance is any particular multiple times the radial distance.
Regarding claim 21, Muller, as modified above, discloses:
the axial distance is at least three times the radial distance (Tessier Fig 6 shows this).
Examiner’s note: Tessier’s drawings (i.e. Fig 6) are not relied upon for exact sizes. The drawings are relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the drawings are relied upon for general relative proportions which are fairly shown in the drawings. Tessier’s disclosure is directed towards controlling/minimizing flow recirculation effects at the impeller eye, thus, one having ordinary skill in the art may reasonably conclude that the drawings fairly show general relative proportions. See MPEP 2125. It is further noted that Applicant’s figures are also not identified as shown to scale, and that Applicant’s original specification, including para 0024, does not explicitly identify that the axial distance is any particular multiple times the radial distance.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of 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.
Conclusion
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
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights