DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues the rejection of claim 1. The 35 U.S.C 102 rejection has been withdrawn based on the amendments. A new 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1 is presented below.
Claim 12 is amended and is discussed in the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections below.
With regard to the rejection of claim 19, the applicant argues Moorehead does not disclose a torus shape. A 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection is presented below as the applicant only has support for the accumulation chamber being a modified torus shape which is broader than specifically a torus shape. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C 102 under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a modified torus shape, which the examiner finds to be essentially an annular shape.
Claims 3 is allowable as indicated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12 and 19-26 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.
Claims 12 and 25 recite, “wherein said top section and said bottom section are physically separate from each other.” The top section and bottom section are implicitly attached to each other as these sections of housings do not move relative to each other. To be considered “physically separate” but still attached, the attachment must be a non-permanent form of attachment. If the attachment were permanent (such as welding) the housing portions would not be “physically separate”. There is no description in the instant application how the top section and bottom section that are claimed are attached. Therefore, there is insufficient support that these portions are physically separate.
Claim 19 recites, “an accumulation chamber having a torus shape”. Paragraph [0004] of the instant application describes different shapes of the accumulation chamber including “a modified torus shape”, but does not describe this accumulation chamber as having a torus shape. Figure 5 depicts the accumulation chamber as (230) which the examiner finds is not a torus. A torus has a precise mathematical definition of is a surface of revolution generated by revolving a circle in three-dimensional space one full revolution about an axis that is coplanar with the circle. In contrast the breadth of what could be considered a modified torus shape is far greater as any reasonable modification may be considered a “modified torus shape”. Therefore, the narrower claim scope is not supported by the original disclosure. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C 102 under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a modified torus shape, which the examiner finds to be essentially an annular shape. Claims that depend from claim 19 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 19 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Moorehead et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20030086782) hereinafter Moorehead.
It is noted that the claimed orientations (top, bottom, upward, etc.) are met with respect to the disclosure/teachings of Moorehead by a rotated orientation of the system 90 degrees counter clockwise as depicted in Figure 2. The pump is still operable in this rotated configuration. For purposes of brevity and clarity this discussion is not repeated throughout the rejections.
Regarding claim 19, Moorehead discloses:
A disk-pack module for use in a fluid treatment system {Figure 1, [0003]},
said disk-pack housing comprising:
a disk-pack turbine having a plurality of disks stacked such that between adjacent disks there is a passageway configured to allow for fluid to pass through {Figure 1 (31), (32), (34); [0003] describes previous disk pumps; the basic functioning of disk pumps is known in the art to have the fluid pass between the adjacent disks. Moorehead doesn’t explicitly describe the well-known functionality of the disk pump, but implicitly discloses it; see MPEP 2112, “the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103”}.
A disk-pack housing {Figure 3 (10) is the disk-pack that is housed by (11) and (21); [0003]}having:
an accumulation chamber having a torus shape and its shortest height configured to be proximate a perimeter of a disk-pack turbine to be inserted into said accumulation chamber {Figure 2, the accumulation chamber is anything to the left of rear disk (32) and to the right of (21). With regard to the torus shape see the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection above. The examiner finds that the disclosed shape described in Moorehead is annular. The height is constant along the radial length of the disks and then increases and (21) moves left along the axial direction toward the inner radial portions. The shortest height is therefore proximate a perimeter of the disk-pack turbine}
said accumulation chamber having an opening passing through its bottom configured to receive a bottom of the disk-pack turbine {Figure 2 (21) has an opening for (58) to pass through which is a bottom of the disk-pack turbine};
a discharge channel extending substantially around a periphery of said accumulation chamber and away from said accumulation chamber {Figures 1 and 2, the volume radially outward of disks (31)/(32)/(34) up to the interior of the housing (11) extends substantially around the periphery of the accumulation chamber; this volume is axially extending away from the accumulation chamber},
said discharge channel having a substantially elliptical cross-section {Figures 1 and 2, the cross-section of the discharge channel along an axial plane is not explicitly described but can be seen to essentially circular based on the shape of (11) which defines the outer wall of the discharge channel; the discharge channel would be presumed to have a circular cross-section implicitly, see MPEP 2112, “the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103”. A circle is a special case of an ellipse where the foci are at the same location. This is similar to a square being a special case of a rectangle with equal sides. All circles are ellipses just as all squares are rectangles}; and
a discharge outlet including a discharge housing (Figure 1 (11)} having a:
a discharge chamber in fluid communication with said discharge channel {[0026] describes the discharge port (43) as being attached to another device such as a hydro-cyclone particle separator which the examiner interprets as comprising a discharge chamber. This discharge chamber is fluid communication with the discharge channel described above via (43)}.
Regarding claim 26, Moorehead further discloses:
wherein fluid pathways exist from a top of said disk-pack turbine through the passageways between said disks into said accumulation chamber before passing through said discharge channel into said discharge chamber prior to exiting said disk-pack module {Figure 1 (73) is at the top of the disk-pack turbine and acts as the inlet for fluid that then passes through the passageways between the disks and into the accumulation chamber. This occurs before the fluid passes into the discharge channel into the discharge chamber (which is exiting the disk-pack module)}.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moorehead et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20030086782) hereinafter Moorehead in view of Oklejas et al. (U.S Patent 4,255,081) hereinafter Oklejas.
It is noted that the claimed orientations (top, bottom, upward, etc.) are met with respect to the disclosure/teachings of Moorehead by a rotated orientation of the system 90 degrees counter clockwise as depicted in Figure 2. The pump is still operable in this rotated configuration. For purposes of brevity and clarity this discussion is not repeated throughout the rejections.
Regarding claim 1, Moorehead discloses:
A disk-pack housing for use in a water treatment system {Figure 3 (10) is the disk-pack that is housed by (11) and (21); [0003]}, said disk-pack housing comprising:
an accumulation chamber having its shortest height configured to be proximate a perimeter of a disk-pack turbine to be inserted into said accumulation chamber {Figure 2, the accumulation chamber is anything to the left of rear disk (32) and to the right of (21). The height is constant along the radial length of the disks and then increases and (21) moves left along the axial direction toward the inner radial portions. The shortest height is therefore proximate a perimeter of the disk-pack turbine}
said accumulation chamber having an opening passing through its bottom configured to receive a bottom of the disk-pack turbine {Figure 2 (21) has an opening for (58) to pass through which is a bottom of the disk-pack turbine};
a discharge channel extending substantially around a periphery of said accumulation chamber and away from said accumulation chamber {Figures 1 and 2, the volume radially outward of disks (31)/(32)/(34) up to the interior of the housing (11) extends substantially around the periphery of the accumulation chamber; this volume is axially extending away from the accumulation chamber},
a discharge outlet including a discharge housing (Figure 1 (11)} having a:
a discharge chamber in fluid communication with said discharge channel {[0026] describes the discharge port (43) as being attached to another device such as a hydro-cyclone particle separator which the examiner interprets as comprising a discharge chamber. This discharge chamber is fluid communication with the discharge channel described above via (43)}.
Moorehead does not disclose:
said discharge channel having a substantially elliptical cross-section taken in a plane including an axis passing through an axial center of said bottom of said accumulation chamber
Oklejas pertains to centrifugal pumps that uses flat disks as impellers and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and is also pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of designing an effective pump and housing configuration.
Oklejas teaches:
said discharge channel having a substantially elliptical cross-section taken in a plane including an axis passing through an axial center of said bottom of said accumulation chamber {Figure 1 is cross section taken in a plane that includes the axis that passes through an axial center of the bottom of the accumulation chamber (33). The discharge channel (9) is found to be substantially elliptical in the same manner as the instant application}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an accumulation chamber of Moorehead with the cross-sectional shape as claimed based on the teachings of Oklejas. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so the change in cross-sectional shape is a simple substitution, see MPEP 2143 I B. Both cross-sectional shapes are used for the same channel that output the fluid from the pump in the desired manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the cross-sectional shape as described and the results would be predictable with the outlet flow of the pump of Moorehead being substantially the same after the modification as before.
Regarding claim 19, Moorehead discloses:
A disk-pack module for use in a fluid treatment system {Figure 1, [0003]},
said disk-pack housing comprising:
a disk-pack turbine having a plurality of disks stacked such that between adjacent disks there is a passageway configured to allow for fluid to pass through {Figure 1 (31), (32), (34); [0003] describes previous disk pumps; the basic functioning of disk pumps is known in the art to have the fluid pass between the adjacent disks. Moorehead doesn’t explicitly describe the well-known functionality of the disk pump, but implicitly discloses it; see MPEP 2112, “the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103”}.
The remainder of the claim is substantially identical to claim 1. For purposes of brevity and clarity the rejection is not repeated. Please see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 26, Moorehead further discloses:
wherein fluid pathways exist from a top of said disk-pack turbine through the passageways between said disks into said accumulation chamber before passing through said discharge channel into said discharge chamber prior to exiting said disk-pack module {Figure 1 (73) is at the top of the disk-pack turbine and acts as the inlet for fluid that then passes through the passageways between the disks and into the accumulation chamber. This occurs before the fluid passes into the discharge channel into the discharge chamber (which is exiting the disk-pack module)}.
Claims 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moorehead et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20030086782) in view of Oklejas as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Possell (U.S Patent 4,403,911) hereinafter Possell.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas teaches the disk-pack housing of claim 1, but does not teach a supplemental inlet in fluid communication with said accumulation chamber.
Possell pertains to disk (tesla) pumps. Possell teaches:
a supplemental inlet in fluid communication with said accumulation chamber {Figure 17, there are two instances of (214) so there is an inlet and a supplemental inlet. Both inlets are in fluid communication with the accumulation chamber that surrounds and is around the disks of the rotor; Possell Column 9 lines 20-29}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an inlet that has two instances as taught by Possell for the inlet configuration of Moorehead. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as disk pumps with a singular inlet and disk pumps with a supplemental inlet are known configurations that may be substituted for each other {Possell Figure 3 and Figure 17; Column 8 lines 52-6}. Additionally, the configuration of there being a supplemental inlet helps to balance thrust forces on the shaft {Possell Column 9 lines 20-29}.
Claims 4-11 and 21-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moorehead in view of Oklejas as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Greene et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20080290023) hereinafter Green.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas teaches the disk pack housing of claim 1, but is silent regarding the details of the hydro-cyclone or other attachment of the discharge port (43). Moorehead is therefore silent regarding, “wherein said discharge chamber includes a discharge outlet, a wall, and a first spiral protrusion running along said wall in an upward direction towards said discharge outlet from an inlet”.
Greene pertains to hydrocyclone / vortex separators which are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of solid filtration from liquids as the instant application and are reasonably pertinent to the problem of separating solid particles from a liquid.
Greene teaches:
wherein said discharge housing includes:
a wall {Figure 1 the interior surface of (16)}, and
an intake at a junction between said discharge channel and said discharge chamber {Figure 1 (13) is at a junction between discharge channel (12) and discharge chamber which is the volume inside of (16)}
a spiral protrusion running along said wall in an upward direction in said discharge outlet from proximate said intake {Figure 1 (22) is a spiral protrusion with an upper portion that runs upward from the proximate the inlet (13)}.
Since Moorehead does not disclose the particular details of the attachment to the discharge path (such as a hydro-cyclone) one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a hydro-cyclone / vortex filtering configuration (the entire configuration) as taught by Greene to attach to the outlet of the pumping configuration of the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a hydrocyclone / vortex is used to separate particulates from medium such as liquids which is useful in treating water {Moorehead [0003], [0026]]}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas and Greene further teaches:
a particulate discharge port extending from a bottom of said discharge housing and in fluid communication with said chamber {Greene Figure 1 (38) is at the bottom of (16) and is in fluid communication with the chamber defined within (16)}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas and Greene further teaches:
wherein said discharge housing includes a wall and a spiral protrusion running along said wall in a downward direction towards said particulate discharge port from proximate to said intake {Greene Figure 1 (22) is a spiral protrusion with a lower portion that runs downward from the proximate the intake (13)}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas and Greene further teaches:
Wherein said discharge housing further includes a detachable upper housing {Greene Figure 1 (15) is an upper piece of the housing (14) that is detachable from the rest, see flange below (15); (15)/(24) get mounted to the rest of (14); [0024]}.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas discloses the disk pack housing of claim 1, but is silent regarding the details of the hydro-cyclone or other attachment of the discharge port (43). Moorehead is therefore silent regarding, “a particulate discharge port extending from a bottom of said discharge housing and in fluid communication with said discharge chamber”.
Greene pertains to hydrocyclone / vortex separators which are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of solid filtration from liquids as the instant application and are reasonably pertinent to the problem of separating solid particles from a liquid.
Greene teaches:
a particulate discharge port extending from a bottom of said discharge housing and in fluid communication with said discharge chamber {Figure 1 (38) is at the bottom of (16) and is in fluid communication with the discharge chamber defined within the walls of (16)}.
Since Moorehead does not disclose the particular details of the attachment to the discharge path (such as a hydro-cyclone) one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a hydro-cyclone / vortex filtering configuration (the entire configuration) as taught by Greene to attach to the outlet of the pumping configuration of the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a hydrocyclone / vortex is used to separate particulates from medium such as liquids which is useful in treating water {Moorehead [0003], [0026]}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas and Greene further teaches:
wherein said discharge housing includes:
a wall {Greene Figure 1 (1) and (2) and their interior surfaces}, and
a spiral protrusion running along said wall of the discharge housing in an downward direction towards said particulate discharge port {Greene Figure 1 (22) runs along the wall of the discharge housing (16) in a downward direction towards (38) from a starting point of (13)}.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas and Greene further teaches:
Wherein said discharge housing further including a detachable upper housing {Greene Figure 1 (15) is an upper piece of the housing (14) that is detachable from the rest, see flange below (15); (15)/(24) get mounted to the rest of (14); [0024]}.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas teaches the disk pack housing of claim 1, but is silent regarding the details of the hydro-cyclone or other attachment of the discharge port (43). Moorehead is therefore silent regarding, “wherein said discharge housing further including a detachable upper housing”.
Greene pertains to hydrocyclone / vortex separators which are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of solid filtration from liquids as the instant application and are reasonably pertinent to the problem of separating solid particles from a liquid.
Greene teaches:
Wherein said discharge housing further including a detachable upper housing {Greene Figure 1 (15) is an upper piece of the housing (14) that is detachable from the rest, see flange below (15); (15)/(24) get mounted to the rest of (14); [0024]}.
Since Moorehead does not disclose the particular details of the attachment to the discharge path (such as a hydro-cyclone) one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a hydro-cyclone filtering configuration (the entire configuration) as taught by Greene to attach to the outlet of the pumping configuration of the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas and Greene. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a hydrocyclone /vortex is used to separate particulates from medium such as liquids which is useful in treating water {Moorehead [0003], [0026]}.
Claims 21-24 are substantially identical to claims 4-7 respectively. For purposes of brevity and clarity the rejection is not repeated. Please see the rejection of claims 4-7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 3 recites, “said inlet feed is configured to discharge on the perimeter of said disk-pack turbine”. In Possell the supplemental inlet’s inlet feed discharges into the interior of the disk-pack turbine, as this supplemental inlet acts as an additional primary inlet for the flow to be acted upon by the disk-pack turbine. The applicant’s supplemental inlet is for influencing the flow as it exits the disk-pack turbine as described in [0054]. Other prior art with a disk-pack turbines are similar to Possell such as Dial (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20060253194). Supplemental inlets that discharge into the region at the perimeter of a pump impeller are present in the prior art such as Marrioti et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20110280710). These pumps are centrifugal pumps that use blades/vanes and the supplemental inlet is for multiple stage configurations. There is insufficient evidence to find the claimed configuration of the supplemental inlet in a configuration using a disk-pack turbine obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights