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 Amendment filed 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application. Claims 11-20 (the first Claim 20 is withdrawn) are withdrawn. Claims 20-21 (the second Claim 20 is entered as “New”) are entered as “New”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
one or more transverse openings located through the thickness (t) of the main plate, as claimed in Claim 1; the instant application figures show a single transverse opening 330, but not more than one; it is not clear how more than one transverse opening would be applied to any of the one fluid pump housing sections 300 shown in any of the figures
a single one of the one or more joining flanges individually extends along at least 50 percent of the perimeter, as claimed in Claim 3
the one or more joining flanges collectively extend along at least 90 percent of the perimeter, as claimed in Claim 4
the one or more joining flanges is a single joining flange that extends along at least 90 percent of the perimeter, as claimed in Claim 6
the first similarly shaped groove, the radial outer surface, and the radial inner surface, as claimed in Claim 8
a first of the at least one of the one or more transverse openings is a crank shaft bore, as claimed in Claim 10; the instant application figures show a single transverse opening 330, but not more than one; it is not clear how more than one transverse opening or crank shaft bore would be applied to any of the one fluid pump housing sections 300 shown in any of the figures
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because Element 320 points to both the joining flange and the first side edge in Figure 3.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they fail to comply with the following §1.84 sections.
New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(m) are required in this application because the shading, in each of the figures, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 330a, 352, 355a. 355b.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Paragraph 0021 should read --In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 3, one or more transverse openings 330 are located through the wall thickness (t) of the main plate 310. In one embodiment, a first
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 01/12/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Paragraph 0020 now states “in those instances wherein the main plate 310 is a curved geometric feature”. This is considered new matter, since it is not clear what the curved geometric feature represents, and the terminology has not been previously used. Applicant has support for the term “circumference”, which generally implies a circular feature. However, Applicant was not using the term correctly, so does not have support for a curved geometric feature.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 & 20-21 (renumbered 21-22) are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 8 should read --The fluid pump housing section as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more joining flanges have a first similarly shaped groove, the first similarly shaped groove extending into a radial outer surface or a radial inner surface of the one or more joining flanges, the first similarly shaped groove forming a reduced thickness weld profile for obtaining a full penetration weld when coupling a second fluid pump housing section to the fluid pump housing section
Claim 20 (renumbered Claim 21) should read --The fluid pump housing section as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more joining flanges extending from the first side edge of the main plate are configured to engage with and be welded to one or more second joining flanges extending from a second first side edge of a second main plate of a second fluid pump housing section.—
Claim 21 (renumbered Claim 22) should read --The fluid pump housing section as recited in Claim 20, wherein the one or more joining flanges extending from the first side edge of the main plate are configured to engage with and be welded to the one or more second joining flanges extending from the second first side edge of the second main plate of the second fluid pump housing section without the use of any plates or skins welded therebetween.--
Appropriate correction is required.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered Claims 20-21 (beginning with the second Claim 20) been renumbered Claims 21-22.
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.
Claim 21 (renumbered Claim 22) is 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.
As to Claim 21 (renumbered Claim 22), applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims the one or more joining flanges extending from the first side edge of the main plate are configured to engage with and be welded to the one or more second joining flanges extending from the second first side edge of the second main plate of the second fluid pump housings section without the use of any plates or skins welded therebetween. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe welding adjacent fluid pump housing sections together without the use of plates or skins between the respective joining flanges.
Instant application Paragraph 0030 describes a situation with skins which is undesirable. However, the original disclosure never states skins or plates are not used between respective joining flanges. This limitation is considered a negative limitation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the negative limitation “to necessarily be present in [the] disclosure” (see MPEP 2173.05(i)), but would conclude the use of skins and plates merely creates disadvantageous situations which must be overcome.
As such, the limitation is considered new matter, since the limitation lacks sufficient written support in the original disclosure.
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 1-10 & 20-21 (renumbered 21-22) 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “the main plate having a perimeter”, in Line 2, is indefinite in light of the specification. The instant application does not define the perimeter of the main plate, so the boundaries of the perimeter are not clear. When referencing instant application Figure 3, one or ordinary skill in the art could identify multiple potential “perimeters”, as shown in Figure 3 below. The transverse opening perimeter and the support ears perimeter are shown, although many other perimeters are within the figure. It is not clear if the claimed perimeter includes the only the transverse opening perimeter, only the support ears perimeter, both the transverse and support ears perimeters, or any combination of the other potential perimeters shown in Figure 3. For the purpose of examination, the perimeter will be interpreted as including both –and only—the transverse opening and support ears perimeters, since an interpretation is required for examination. However, it is not clear the original disclosure has support for any particular interpretation, since the perimeter has not been fully defined by the original disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
799
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Instant Application Figure 3, Modified by Examiner
The limitation “the one or more joining flanges collectively extending along at least 60 percent of the perimeter”, in Lines 5-7, is indefinite. In light of the term “perimeter” being indefinite, as described above, it is not clear how to calculate the percentage of the perimeter with respect to the one or more joining flanges.
As to Claim 2, the limitation “the one or more joining flanges collectively extend along at least 75 percent of the perimeter” is indefinite. In light of the term “perimeter” being indefinite, as described above, it is not clear how to calculate the percentage of the perimeter with respect to the one or more joining flanges.
As to Claim 3, the limitation “a single one of the one or more joining flanges individually extends along at least 50 percent of the perimeter.” is indefinite. In light of the term “perimeter” being indefinite, as described above, it is not clear how to calculate the percentage of the perimeter with respect to the one or more joining flanges.
As to Claim 4, the limitation “the one or more joining flanges collectively extend along at least 90 percent of the perimeter” is indefinite. In light of the term “perimeter” being indefinite, as described above, it is not clear how to calculate the percentage of the perimeter with respect to the one or more joining flanges.
As to Claim 5, the limitation “a single one of the one or more joining flanges individually extends along at least 75 percent of the perimeter” is indefinite. In light of the term “perimeter” being indefinite, as described above, it is not clear how to calculate the percentage of the perimeter with respect to the one or more joining flanges.
As to Claim 6, the limitation “the one or more joining flanges is a single joining flange that extends along at least 90 percent of the perimeter” is indefinite in light of the specification, where the boundaries of each of the flanges is not clear. Instant application Figure 3 describes the one or more joining flanges as Element 340.
One of ordinary skill in the art would most likely interpret the one or more joining flanges 340 in Figure 3 as a single flange with multiple corners, or interpret the one or more joining flanges 340 in Figure 3 as multiple flanges, where each corner defines ends of each respective flange. However, the total length --assuming Figure 3 only shows a single flange 340-- of the one or more flanges 340 appears to be less than 90% of the undefined perimeter in Figure 3. As such, it is not clear how any single flange of the one or more flanges is able to extend along at least 90 percent of the undefined perimeter.
In light of the term “perimeter” being indefinite, as described above, it is not clear how to calculate the percentage of the perimeter with respect to the one or more joining flanges.
As to Claim 9, the limitation “the one or more second joining flanges collectively extending along at least 60 percent of the perimeter” is indefinite. In light of the term “perimeter” being indefinite, as described above, it is not clear how to calculate the percentage of the perimeter with respect to the one or more joining flanges.
As to Claim 21 (renumbered Claim 22), the term “therebetween”, at the end of the claim, is indefinite. It is not clear which structure is being referred to by the term, since the term could be referring to either the respective flanges, the respective edges, or the respective main plates. For the purpose of examination, the term will be interpreted to be referring to the respective flanges.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 20-21 (renumbered 21-22) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne (U.S. PGPub 2021/0270264), in view of omnicalculator.com (see attached Welding Calculator – Strength of Weld Joints pdf from web.archive.org/web/20230207005831/https://www.omnicalculator.com/construction/welding).
As to Claim 1, Byrne teaches a fluid pump housing section (46; Figure 17), comprising: a main plate (48), the main plate (48) having a perimeter (the perimeter of bearing support surface 84 in Figure 17), as well as a thickness (the width of the main plate 48 between flanges 48a/48b, as viewed in Figure 17) defining a first side edge (the edge of main plate 48 defining flange 48a in Figure 17) and a second opposing side edge (the edge of main plate 48 defining flange 48b in Figure 17); one or more transverse openings (84) located through (as shown in Figure 17) the thickness (the width of the main plate 48 between flanges 48a/48b, as viewed in Figure 17) of the main plate (48); and one or more joining flanges (48a/50a) extending from (as shown in Figure 17) the first side edge (the edge of main plate 48 defining flange 48a in Figure 17) of the main plate (48).
Although it appears the one or more joining flanges 48a/50a extend along at least 60 percent of the perimeter, it is not clear from the drawings, and Byrne is silent on the extension length. As such, Byrne does not explicitly teach the one or more joining flanges collectively extending along at least 60 percent of the perimeter.
The website omnicalculator.com describes how to calculate weld strength, and teaches the length of the weld is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the strength of a weld –see the bottom of page 5 through page 7, which describes weld strength formulas using length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the one or more flanges along at least 60 percent of the perimeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 2, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but is silent on the extension length of the one or more joining flanges. As such, Byrne, as modified, does not explicitly teach the one or more joining flanges collectively extend along at least 75 percent of the perimeter.
The website omnicalculator.com describes how to calculate weld strength, and teaches the length of the weld is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the strength of a weld –see the bottom of page 5 through page 7, which describes weld strength formulas using length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the one or more flanges along at least 75 percent of the perimeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 3, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1-2, and continues to teach the one or more joining flanges (48a/50a) is comprised of a single joining flange (48a).
However, Byrnes, as modified, is silent on the extension length of the single joining flange. As such, Byrne, as modified, does not explicitly teach a single one of the one or more joining flanges individually extends along at least 50 percent of the perimeter.
The website omnicalculator.com describes how to calculate weld strength, and teaches the length of the weld is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the strength of a weld –see the bottom of page 5 through page 7, which describes weld strength formulas using length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend a single one of the one or more flanges individually along at least 50 percent of the perimeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 4, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but is silent on the extension length of the one or more joining flanges. As such, Byrne, as modified, does not explicitly teach the one or more joining flanges collectively extend along at least 90 percent of the perimeter.
The website omnicalculator.com describes how to calculate weld strength, and teaches the length of the weld is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the strength of a weld –see the bottom of page 5 through page 7, which describes weld strength formulas using length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the one or more flanges along at least 90 percent of the perimeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 5, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 4, and continues to teach the one or more joining flanges (48a/50a) is comprised of a single joining flange (48a).
However, Byrnes, as modified, is silent on the extension length of the single joining flange. As such, Byrne, as modified, does not explicitly teach a single one of the one or more joining flanges individually extends along at least 75 percent of the perimeter.
The website omnicalculator.com describes how to calculate weld strength, and teaches the length of the weld is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the strength of a weld –see the bottom of page 5 through page 7, which describes weld strength formulas using length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend a single flange of the one more joining flanges along at least 75 percent of the perimeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 6, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the one or more joining flanges (48a/50a) is a single joining flange (48a).
However, Byrnes, as modified, is silent on the extension length of the single joining flange. As such, Byrne does not explicitly teach the one or more joining flanges collectively extend along at least 90 percent of the perimeter.
The website omnicalculator.com describes how to calculate weld strength, and teaches the length of the weld is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the strength of a weld –see the bottom of page 5 through page 7, which describes weld strength formulas using length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the one or more flanges along at least 90 percent of the perimeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 7, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the one or more joining flanges (48a/50a) form a first perimeter weld profile (the profile created by joining flanges 48a/50a), and further wherein at least 60 percent of the first perimeter weld profile (the profile created by joining flanges 48a/50a) is in a same first plane. Figure 17 shows 48a and 50a in the same plane. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude at least 60 percent of the first perimeter weld profile is in the same plane.
As to Claim 8, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the one or more joining flanges (48a/50a) have a first similarly shaped (as shown in Figure 17, where the groove follows the outer edge of the one or more joining flanges, where based on Paragraph 0094, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude 48a and 48b are mirror images of each other) groove (see Figure 17 below), the first similarly shaped groove (see Figure 17 below) extending into (as shown in Figure 17) a radial outer surface (see Figure 17 below) or a radial inner surface (see Figure 17 below) of the one or more joining flanges (48a/50a), the first similarly shaped groove (see Figure 17 below) forming a reduced thickness weld profile (see Figure 17 below, where 48a and 48b are mirror images of each other) for obtaining a weld (Paragraph 0094) when coupling two adjacent fluid pump housing sections (46) together to form (Paragraph 0094) a fluid pump housing (the combination of fluid pump housing sections 46, as described in Paragraph 0094).
PNG
media_image2.png
635
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Byrne Figure 17, Modified by Examiner
Byrne, as modified, is silent on the type of weld used, so does not explicitly teach the use of a full penetration weld.
As described by Byrne, there is a need to weld adjacent fluid pump housing sections together to form a fluid pump housing (Paragraph 0094). Since there are only a finite ways to weld –i.e., laser, partial penetration, full penetration, spot– and each option will lead to a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try one of them to weld the adjacent fluid pump housing sections together. MPEP 2143(I)(E)
Additionally, this limitation is considered a product-by-process, and "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Since Byrne, as modified, already meets the structural limitations of the claim, the full penetration weld limitation is not considered patentable. See MPEP 2113.
As to Claim 9, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach one or more second joining flanges (48b/50b) extending from (as shown in Figure 17) the second side edge (the edge of main plate 48 defining flange 48b in Figure 17) of the main plate (48), the one or more second joining flanges (48b/50b) collectively extending along at least 60 percent of the perimeter.
Although it appears the one or more second joining flanges 48b/50b extend along at least 60 percent of the perimeter, it is not clear from the drawings, and Byrne is silent on the extension length. As such, Byrne does not explicitly teach the one or more second joining flanges collectively extending along at least 60 percent of the perimeter.
The website omnicalculator.com describes how to calculate weld strength, and teaches the length of the weld is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the strength of a weld –see the bottom of page 5 through page 7, which describes weld strength formulas using length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the one or more second flanges along at least 60 percent of the perimeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 10, Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a first (84) of the at least one of the one or more transverse openings (84) is a crank shaft bore (as shown in Figure 40, where crankshaft 16 extends through transverse opening 84).
As to Claim 20 (renumbered Claim 21), Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the one or more joining flanges (48a/50a) extending from (as shown in Figure 17) the first side edge (the edge of main plate 48 defining flange 48a in Figure 17) of the main plate (48) are configured to engage with (via contact; Paragraph 0094) and be welded to (Paragraph 0094) one or more second joining flanges (48a/50a of the “adjacently positioned fluid pump housing section 46, as described in Paragraph 0094) extending from (as shown in Figure 17) a second first side edge (the edge of main plate 48 defining flange 48b in Figure 17) of a second main plate (48) of a second fluid pump housings section (46).
As to Claim 21 (renumbered Claim 22), Byrne, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 20 (renumbered Claim 21), and continues to teach the one or more joining flanges (48a/50a) extending from (as shown in Figure 17) the first side edge (the edge of main plate 48 defining flange 48a in Figure 17) of the main plate (48) are configured to engage with (via contact; Paragraph 0094) and be welded to (Paragraph 0094) the one or more second joining flanges (48a/50a of the “adjacently positioned fluid pump housing section 46, as described in Paragraph 0094) extending from (as shown in Figure 17) the second first side edge (the edge of main plate 48 defining flange 48b in Figure 17) of the second main plate (48) of the second fluid pump housings section (46) without the use of any plates or skins welded therebetween (as described in Paragraph 0094).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, Applicant stated new drawings have not been submitted. As such, the drawing objections are maintained. Additionally, amendments to the specification require new drawing objections.
Applicant argues the amendment to Specification Paragraph 0021 overcomes the objection to the drawings not showing one or more transverse openings in a single fluid pump housing section. Examiner disagrees. Only one opening –transverse opening 303—is shown in each housing section. Examiner suggests amending the language to state “one transverse opening located through…”, since there are only plural openings when multiple housing sections are attached to each other. Since only one housing section is being claimed, only one opening may be claimed.
Applicant argues instant application Figure 3 shows the flanges extending along at least 90 percent of the perimeter. Examiner disagrees. As described in the 112(b) rejections above, the perimeter has not been fully defined. As such, it is impossible to determine the respective length of the flanges to the perimeter.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, Applicant argues replacing the term “circumference” with the term “perimeter” overcome the previous rejection. Examiner disagrees.
As explained above, the term “perimeter” –nor the previous term “circumference-- is not fully defined by the original disclosure. Without knowing where the perimeter begins or ends, it is impossible to determine how the respective flange lengths compare to the perimeter –or circumference.
Regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues the prior art with the flanges extending less than 60 percent of the perimeter would require weld lengths greater than the claimed design, since the prior art would require skins (see bottom of Page 12 of the 01/12/2026 Applicant Remarks). Applicant’s argument continues by hypothetically comparing the instant application to the cited 103 reference –Byrnes—by creating cutouts in the instant application Figure 3 flange, where the cutouts would require a greater length of welding than the length of the flange. As such, Applicant believes it would not be obvious to modify Byrnes, as done in the 09/19/2026 Non-Final Rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the above analysis.
First, Byrnes expressly states no skins are used (Paragraph 0094) between each of the adjacent housing sections when welded together. As such, the very foundation of Applicant’s argument has no basis.
Second, Applicant is assuming cuts would be made in Byrnes to achieve the desired weld length. Examiner alleges this is merely speculative, and it would be much more reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to merely change the size of the respective housing section flanges to meet the desired weld length than to make unnecessary and difficult cuts, especially in light of omnicalculator.com.
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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783