DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 03/26/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3 and 8-24 are currently pending. Claims 21-24 are newly added. Claims 8-20 were previously with drawn from consideration. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 21-24 are currently under examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a rotation detector configured to detect rotation” in claim 6.
Prong 1: The use of a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder – “detector”
Prong 2: The use of functional language – “detector configured for”
Prong 3: There is not sufficient structure modifying the generic placeholder.
Therefore the 3 prongs are met and the claim limitation will be interpreted as any device able to detect rotation of an element due to the breadth of ¶ 38 of the submitted specification
“an anti-rotation device configured to prevent rotation” in claim 7.
Prong 1: The use of a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder – “device”
Prong 2: The use of functional language – “device configured for”
Prong 3: There is not sufficient structure modifying the generic placeholder.
Therefore the 3 prongs are met and the claim limitation will be interpreted as a brake pad, an electromagnetic device, or the like per ¶ 39 of the submitted specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H06-307376 (Tajima hereinafter) in view of GB 2434385 (Sachdeva hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Tajima teaches a submersible pump and reverse flow prevention system (Figure 1 with the Abstract) that discloses a flow-passage structure having a first flow passage (Figures 2 and 3, passage at 62/69), a second flow passage (Passages at 65/66), and a third flow passage (Passage 5P); and a valve element arranged in the flow-passage structure (Valve 61), the valve element being configured to close either the first flow passage or the second flow passage to allow the third flow passage to selectively communicate with either the first flow passage or the second flow passage (Evident from Figures 2 and 3 with the valve 61), the first flow passage communicating with a discharge outlet of the submersible pump (Evident in Figure 2), the second flow passage communicating with an interior of the suction vessel (Evident form Figures 1-3), the interior of the suction vessel being in fluid communication with a suction inlet of the submersible pump (Figure 3 with the interior of 2 in communication at 3 in Figures 1 and 15), and the third flow passage communicating with a discharge port of the suction vessel (Evident of Figures 1, 2, and 15 at 10).
Tajima is silent with respect to a spring configured to press the valve element against a valve seat formed around an outlet of the first flow passage to close the first flow passage.
However, Sachdeva teaches a fluid flow path switching system (Figures 6 and 7) that discloses a spring configured to press the valve element against a valve seat formed around an outlet of the first flow passage to close the first flow passage (Figures 6 and 7 show the valve 108 biased by the spring 66 into a closed relationship with the equivalent first flow passage at reference line 92 when seated into the valve seat 112 per ¶ 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the floating valve of Tajima with the spring guide of Sachdeva to enclose complete valve closure.
Regarding claim 5, Tajima teaches a pump system that discloses a submersible pump configured to deliver liquefied gas (Impeller 51 in Figure 1), the submersible pump having a suction inlet for the liquefied gas (Inlet communication from 3 in Figures 1 and 15); a suction vessel in which the submersible pump is accommodated (Surrounding body shown in Figure 1), the suction vessel having a suction port for introducing the liquefied gas therein (Suction port leading into 3 in Figures 1 and 15), the suction inlet of the submersible pump being located in an interior of the suction vessel (Suction inlet within 2 and in communication with 3); and a fluid-path switching apparatus for preventing idling rotation of the submersible pump (Figures 1-3 with the valve specifically shown in Figures 2 and 3), the fluid-path switching apparatus including: a flow-passage structure having a first flow passage (Figures 2 and 3, passage at 62/69), a second flow passage (Passages at 65/66), and a third flow passage (Passage 5P); and a valve element arranged in the flow-passage structure (Valve 61), the valve element being configured to close either the first flow passage or the second flow passage to allow the third flow passage to selectively communicate with either the first flow passage or the second flow passage (Evident from Figures 2 and 3 with the valve 61), the first flow passage communicating with a discharge outlet of the submersible pump (Evident in Figure 2), the second flow passage communicating with the interior of the suction vessel (Evident form Figures 1-3), the interior of the suction vessel being in fluid communication with the suction inlet of the submersible pump (Figure 3 with the interior of 2 in communication at 3 in Figures 1 and 15), and the third flow passage communicating with a discharge port of the suction vessel (Evident of Figures 1, 2, and 15 at 10).
Tajima is silent with respect to a spring configured to press the valve element against a valve seat formed around an outlet of the first flow passage to close the first flow passage.
However, a spring configured to press the valve element against a valve seat formed around an outlet of the first flow passage to close the first flow passage (Figures 6 and 7 show the valve 108 biased by the spring 66 into a closed relationship with the equivalent first flow passage at reference line 92 when seated into the valve seat 112 per ¶ 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the floating valve of Tajima with the spring guide of Sachdeva to enclose complete valve closure.
Regarding claim 22, Tajima’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Tajima and Sachdeva would further disclose that the valve element has a side surface configured to close the second flow passage (Figure 7 of Sachdeva shows the side of valve 108 sealing a second passage at 28 and the resultant combination would allow for the sealing of the second passage of Tajima with a top/side of Sachdeva), and the side surface of the valve element is parallel with a moving direction of the valve element (Evident from Figures 6 and 7 of Sachdeva and the orientation shown in Tajima to create seals).
Regarding claim 24, Tajima’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Tajima and Sachdeva would further disclose that the valve element has a side surface configured to close the second flow passage (Figure 7 of Sachdeva shows the side of valve 108 sealing a second passage at 28 and the resultant combination would allow for the sealing of the second passage of Tajima with a top/side of Sachdeva), and the side surface of the valve element is parallel with a moving direction of the valve element (Evident from Figures 6 and 7 of Sachdeva and the orientation shown in Tajima to create seals).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H06-307376 (Tajima) in view of GB 2434385 (Sachdeva) and further in view of JP-S63-259189 (Kazuo hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Tajima’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the flow-passage structure further includes a bypass passage that bypasses the valve element to establish fluid communication between the first flow passage and the third flow passage when the valve element closes the first flow passage, and the bypass passage has a cross-sectional area smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first flow passage.
However, Kazuo teaches a submerged pump system that discloses a flow-passage structure further includes a bypass that bypasses the valve element to establish fluid communication between a first flow passage and a third flow passage when the valve element closes the first flow passage, and the bypass passage has a cross-sectional area smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first flow passage. (Figures 3-8 show a plurality of embodiments of the bypass line 8 between the equivalent first flow passage at the “figure bottom” and the third passage at the “figure top”; the bypass 8 is shown as having a cross-sectional area smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first flow passage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid flow passage of Tajima/Sachdeva with the bypass line of Kazuo to allow a portion of fluid to escape at all times and prevent excessive build-ups.
Regarding claim 3, Tajima’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Tajima, Sachdeva, and Kazuo would further disclose that the cross-sectional area of the bypass passage is such that an impeller of the submersible pump does not rotate due to flow of gas when the valve element closes the first flow passage and the gas flows through the submersible pump and the bypass passage (Evident of the combination and the relative size of the bypass should by Kazuo compared to the equivalent first and third flow passages).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H06-307376 (Tajima) in view of GB 2434385 (Sachdeva) and further in view of 2012/0257995 (True hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Tajima’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 but are silent with respect to a rotation detector configured to detect rotation of the submersible pump.
However, True teaches an electric submersible pump that discloses the use of a rotation detector configured to detect rotation of the submersible pump (¶ 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electric submersible pump of Tajima with the rotation detector of True to allow for a user to monitor the electric submersible pump for operating in the correct ranges.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H06-307376 (Tajima) in view of GB 2434385 (Sachdeva) and further in view of US 2012/0257985 (Parmeter hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Tajima’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 but are silent with respect to an anti-rotation device configured to prevent rotation of the submersible pump.
However, Parmeter teaches an electric submersible pump system that discloses the use of an anti-rotation device configured to prevent rotation of the submersible pump (¶ 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify he impellers of Tajima with the anti-rotation device of Parmeter to ensure that reverse rotation is prevented during times of non-operation.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H06-307376 (Tajima) in view of GB 2434385 (Sachdeva) and further in view of US 3735777 (Katzer hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, Tajima’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the valve seat has a tapered recess shape.
However, Katzer teaches a spring biased valve for fluid flowpath control that discloses a valve seat with a tapered recess shape (Figures 1-3 with valve seat 18 for the valve 25 to mate with).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mating surfaces of the valve and valve seat of Tajima/Sachdeva with the tapered interface of Katzer to increase the sealing surface area and therefore prevent leaks.
Regarding claim 23, Tajima’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 but are silent with respect that the valve seat has a tapered recess shape.
However, Katzer teaches a spring biased valve for fluid flowpath control that discloses a valve seat with a tapered recess shape (Figures 1-3 with valve seat 18 for the valve 25 to mate with).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mating surfaces of the valve and valve seat of Tajima/Sachdeva with the tapered interface of Katzer to increase the sealing surface area and therefore prevent leaks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 21-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights