DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections of claims 1, 12, 19, and 26 is persuasive. A new grounds of rejection is presented below with teachings from Tesla (U.S Patent 1,061,142).
The applicant argues that teachings of Possell do not teach the supplemental inlet connects with said accumulation chamber along its periphery prior to said discharge channel. The examiner finds that the disk-pack turbine has a periphery not only radially but also axially. The supplemental inlet of Possell connects at the axial periphery of the disk-pack turbine. This interpretation is also used in the rejection of claims 3 and 20. The finding of these claims having allowable subject matter is therefore withdrawn. The applicant further argues that it is unclear how two conduit extensions from the teachings of Possell would be applied to the configuration of Moorehead due to Moorehead having a disk-pack turbine mounted on a shaft axially cantered with the disk-pack turbine. It is unclear what issue the applicant is raising as the 90 degree offset in the shown orientations of the two configurations does not impact the ability to have a supplemental inlet. The shaft of Moorehead and Possell is angled with respect to the disks and/or housings in the same manner.
The applicant argues with regard to claim 28 that Tesla does not teach limitation as the accumulation chamber does not reach the opening for the disk-pack turbine. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The opening may be considered the inlets for the fluid flow onto the disks (rather than the opening for the shaft); the claims do not preclude this interpretation.
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 19-24 and 27-29 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.
Claim 19 recites, “a disk-pack turbine having a plurality of solid disks stacked such that between adjacent disks there is a passageway configured to allow for fluid to pass through”. The claim newly recites that the disks are “solid”. The specification never describes these disks as solid. Figure 30A shows the disks 260N. There is a central hole to each of the disks. The examiner finds that these disks are not solid as there is a hole in the center. “Solid” based upon the examiner’s definition would be not hollow or containing spaces or gaps. It is noted other definitions of “solid” may be possible, see the 35 U.S.C 112 second paragraph rejections below.
Claims dependent from claim 19 are also rejected.
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.
Claims 19-24 and 27-29 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 19 recites, “a disk-pack turbine having a plurality of solid disks stacked such that between adjacent disks there is a passageway configured to allow for fluid to pass through”. The claim newly recites that the disks are “solid”. The specification never describes these disks as solid. Solid has several plain meanings. First, “solid” may mean not hollow or containing spaces or gaps. The disclosed disks do not meet this requirement, see the 35 U.S.C 112 first paragraph rejections above. Solid may mean also mean “firm and stable in shape”. This definition has terms of degree (firm / stable). 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. Lastly, solid may mean “not liquid or fluid”. Any prior art disk would meet this definition and is likely not the applicant’s intent as it would not assist in overcoming prior art. Based on the above, “solid” is indefinite. For purposes of the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections below the broadest definition of “not liquid or fluid” is used. Claims dependent from claim 19 are also rejected.
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, 12, 19, 26, 28, and 29 are 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, and Tesla (U.S Patent 1,061,142) hereinafter Tesla.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 {Annotated Figure 2, the accumulation chamber is the region between (21) and (11) and radially within the disks (32). The height (IIa) is constant along the radial length of the disks and then increases toward the inner radial portions, see (IIb) and (IIc) as examples. The shortest height is therefore proximate a perimeter of the disk-pack turbine}
said accumulation chamber having an opening passing through a bottom surface 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};
the accumulation chamber height varies between the perimeter and the opening with the bottom surface being curved between the perimeter and proximate the opening {Annotated Figure 2, the height varies as (IIa) ≠ (IIb) ≠ (IIIc). The bottom surface is curved between the perimeter and proximate the opening at the radial location of (IIb)}
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 extends 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
the accumulation chamber height has a top surface being curved between the perimeter and proximate the opening
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tesla 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.
Tesla teaches:
the accumulation chamber height has a top surface being curved between the perimeter and proximate the opening {Annotated Figure 3, the accumulation chamber has a top surface that is curved between the perimeter and proximate opening at (9), see curvature at (IVa)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an accumulation chamber with a top surface with curvature as taught by Tesla for the accumulation chamber of the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the shear forces at the outer peripheral portions of the disks can be controlled and Tesla invented this form of pump/turbine making these early inventions very well known in the art including configurations of the housing which defines the pump chamber {Tesla Figure 2 (8)}.
Regarding claim 12, Moorehead further discloses:
a top section and a bottom section that together form said disk-pack housing {Figures 1 and 2, top section and bottom section of the disk-pack housing is not limited to the pieces shown in Figure 1 of (21) and (11). The housing may be arbitrarily divided into the top section and bottom section as there are no structural limitations that define this distinction} and
each section defines about half said accumulation chamber-and said discharge channel, and part of said discharge chamber {As discussed above, since the division between the top and bottom sections is arbitrarily it may be divided at a location where the accumulation chamber and discharge channel are split in half. It is noted that this separation may be planar for due to the geometry of Moorehead shown. Further, the discharge chamber described in [0026] may be arbitrarily separated as well as it is connected to the discharge port (43)}
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 solid 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”. Regarding “solid” see the 35 U.S.C 112 second paragraph rejection above}.
an accumulation chamber having a modified torus shape and its shortest height configured to be proximate a perimeter of a disk-pack turbine to be inserted into said accumulation chamber {Annotated Figure 2, the accumulation chamber is the region between (21) and (11) and radially within the disks (32). The height (IIa) is constant along the radial length of the disks and then increases toward the inner radial portions, see (IIb) and (IIc) as examples. The shortest height is therefore proximate a perimeter of the disk-pack turbine. The examiner finds that the disclosed shape described in Moorehead is annular and may therefore be considered a modified torus shape}
said accumulation chamber having an opening passing through its bottom surface 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};
an inlet opening passing through its top surface aligned with the opening {Figures 1 / 2, (13) is an inlet opening that passes through the top surface as is aligned with the opening described above; [0041]},
the modified torus shape is defined by its top and bottom surfaces of the accumulation chamber {Figure 2, as described above, the accumulation chamber is the region between (21) and (11) and radially within the disks (32). This includes both the top and bottom surfaces of (11)/(21) which form the interior chamber}
the bottom surface of the accumulation chamber has a curved surface between the perimeter and opening {Annotated Figure 2, the bottom surface is curved between the perimeter and proximate the opening at the radial location of (IIb)}
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)}.
wherein the plurality of solid disk are located in the accumulation chamber {Annotated Figure 2, the accumulation chamber is the region between (21) and (11) and radially within the disks (32). The plurality of disks are within (21) and (11) and the region defined as the accumulation chamber}
Moorehead does not disclose:
said discharge channel having a substantially elliptical cross-section having a major axis perpendicular to the plurality of disks
the top surface of the accumulation chamber having a curved surface between the perimeter and opening(s).
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 having a major axis perpendicular to the plurality of disks {Figure 1 the discharge channel (9) is found to be substantially elliptical with a major axis in the up/down direction and the plurality of disks extending in/out of the page and left/right which are perpendicular to the major axis}
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 as 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.
Tesla 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.
Tesla teaches:
the top surface of the accumulation chamber having a curved surface between the perimeter and opening {Annotated Figure 3, the accumulation chamber has a top surface that is curved between the perimeter and proximate opening at (9), see curvature at (IVa)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an accumulation chamber with a top surface with curvature as taught by Tesla for the accumulation chamber of the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the shear forces at the outer peripheral portions of the disks can be controlled and Tesla invented this form of pump/turbine making these early inventions very well known in the art including configurations of the housing which defines the pump chamber {Tesla Figure 2 (8)}.
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)}.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas, and Tesla further teaches:
wherein the accumulation chamber increases in height from the perimeter before decreasing in height as the accumulation chamber reaches the opening with its highest height closer to the opening than the perimeter {Annotated Figure 3, the accumulation chamber increases in height from the perimeter, see (V). It then decreases in height at (IVa/b) as it reaches the opening. The highest height would still be at (IIc) based on Moorehead which is closer to the opening than the perimeter. Additionally, the highest height is closer to the opening than the perimeter in the tesla configuration as well as (IVa/b) is almost right next to the outer edge of the opening}.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas, and Tesla teaches the disk-pack module of claim 19, but does not teach:
wherein the curved surfaces mirror each other and are spaced from said disk-pack turbine
Tesla 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.
Tesla teaches:
wherein the curved surfaces mirror each other and are spaced from said disk-pack turbine {Annotated Figure 3, the curved surfaces (IVa) and (IVb) mirror each other and are spaced from the disk-pack turbine (1)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an accumulation chamber with a bottom surface with curvature as taught by Tesla for the accumulation chamber of the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas (this is in addition to the top surface having curvature taught by Tesla in the modification used in the rejection of claim 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the shear forces at the outer peripheral portions of the disks can be controlled and Tesla invented this form of pump/turbine making these early inventions very well known in the art including configurations of the housing which defines the pump chamber {Tesla Figure 2 (8)}.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moorehead in view of Oklejas and Tesla as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and in further view of Possell (U.S Patent 4,403,911) hereinafter Possell.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas, and Tesla teaches the disk-pack housing of claim 1, but does not teach a supplemental inlet in fluid communication with said accumulation chamber and connects with the accumulation chamber along its periphery prior to said discharge channel.
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 the disks of the rotor are positioned in; Possell Column 9 lines 20-29},
Said supplemental inlet connects with said accumulation chamber along its periphery prior to said discharge channel {Figure 17, the supplemental inlet (214) is at an axial periphery of the accumulation chamber where the disk are housed and is upstream/prior to the discharge channel}. 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}.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Moorehead, Okelajas, and Tesla teaches:
The disk-pack module of claim 19, but does not disclose:
a supplemental inlet in fluid communication with said accumulation chamber,
said supplemental inlet includes an inlet port and an inlet feed chamber
such that a fluid pathway is capable of running from said inlet port through said inlet feed chamber into at least one of said accumulation chamber and said discharge channel, and
said inlet feed chamber is configured to discharge on the perimeter of the disk-pack turbine.
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 the disks of the rotor are positioned in; Possell Column 9 lines 20-29},
said supplemental inlet includes an inlet port and an inlet feed chamber {Figure 17, an upstream portion of (214) can be considered the inlet port and more downstream portion of (214) may be considered an inlet feed chamber}
such that a fluid pathway is capable of running from said inlet port through said inlet feed chamber into at least one of said accumulation chamber and said discharge channel {Figure 17, a fluid pathway that is another portion of (214) may be between the inlet and inlet feed chamber described above. The fluid may then flow into the accumulation chamber}, and
said inlet feed chamber is configured to discharge on the perimeter of the disk-pack turbine {Figure 17, the supplemental inlet (214) is at an axial periphery/perimeter of the accumulation chamber}
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 27 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 and Tesla as applied to claim 19 above, and in further view of Brown et al. (U.S Patent 2,087,834) hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas, and Tesla teaches the disk-pack module of claim 19 but is silent regarding:
a first bearing or bushing set in a recess in the disk-pack housing around a neck of the disk-pack turbine; and
a second bearing or bushing set in a recess in the disk-pack housing around a motor hub of the disk-pack turbine.
Brown 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.
Brown teaches:
a first bearing or bushing set in a recess in the disk-pack housing around a neck of the disk-pack turbine {Figure 7, there are bearings on the right side of the figure which are set in a recess of the disk-pack housing (19) around what may be considered a neck of the disk-pace turbine}; and
a second bearing or bushing set in a recess in the disk-pack housing around a motor hub of the disk-pack turbine {Figure 7, there is a second bearing on the left side of the figure which are set in a recess of the disk-packing housing (19) around a motor hub of the disk-pack turbine. The motor is not shown in the figure but (111) is a part of it; see Figure 6 (18)}.
Since the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas, and Tesla does not teach the particular details of the bearing configuration, 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 bearing configuration as taught by Brown for the system of the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas, and Tesla. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as suitable bearings are required to efficiently support a motor shaft {Brown Page 2 right column lines 8-18}.
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 and Tesla 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, Oklejas, and Tesla 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, Oklejas, and Tesla . 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, Tesla, 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, Tesla, 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, Tesla, and Greene further teaches:
wherein said discharge housing further includes a detachable upper housing {Moorehead, the entirety of (11) and therefore an upper portion is attached to a hydro-cyclone particle separator unit which forms the discharge chamber; implicitly this attachment is detachable, see MPEP 2144.01. Moorehead paragraph [0026]. 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, Oklejas, and Tesla 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, “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, Oklejas, and Tesla. 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, Tesla, 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, Tesla, 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, Oklejas, and Tesla 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, Tesla 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 21-23 are substantially identical to claims 4-6 respectively. For purposes of brevity and clarity the rejection is not repeated. Please see the rejection of claims 4-6 above.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Moorehead, Oklejas, Tesla, and Greene further teaches:
wherein said discharge housing further includes an upper housing configured to be detachable from a wall around said discharge chamber {Moorehead, the entirety of (11) and therefore an upper portion is attached to a hydro-cyclone particle separator unit which forms the discharge chamber; implicitly this attachment is detachable, see MPEP 2144.01. Moorehead paragraph [0026]. 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]}.
Claims 3 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 and Possell (U.S Patent 4,403,911) hereinafter Possell.
Regarding claim 3, 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 {Annotated Figure 2, the accumulation chamber is the region between (21) and (11) and radially within the disks (32). The height (IIa) is constant along the radial length of the disks and then increases toward the inner radial portions, see (IIb) and (IIc) as examples. 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 extends 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)}.
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
a supplemental inlet in fluid communication with said accumulation chamber,
said supplemental inlet includes an inlet port and an inlet feed chamber
such that a fluid pathway is capable of running from said inlet port through said inlet feed chamber into at least one of said accumulation chamber and said discharge channel, and
said inlet feed chamber is configured to discharge on the perimeter of the disk-pack turbine.
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 {Figure 1 is cross section 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.
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 the disks of the rotor are positioned in; Possell Column 9 lines 20-29},
said supplemental inlet includes an inlet port and an inlet feed chamber {Figure 17, an upstream portion of (214) can be considered the inlet port and more downstream portion of (214) may be considered an inlet feed chamber}
such that a fluid pathway is capable of running from said inlet port through said inlet feed chamber into at least one of said accumulation chamber and said discharge channel {Figure 17, a fluid pathway that is another portion of (214) may be between the inlet and inlet feed chamber described above. The fluid may then flow into the accumulation chamber}, and
said inlet feed chamber is configured to discharge on the perimeter of the disk-pack turbine {Figure 17, the supplemental inlet (214) is at an axial periphery/perimeter of the accumulation chamber}
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 the combination of Moorehead and Oklejas. 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}.
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