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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
the outer boundary, as claimed in Claim 1
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
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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 1-10 and 21-22 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.
As to Claim 1, 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 perimeter being defined by an outer boundary of a transverse cross-section of the main plate taken normal to the thickness (t). This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe the definition of the perimeter.
This amendment appears to be an attempt to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections concerning the lack of a definition for a perimeter. However, since no definition of the perimeter was previously described, any attempt to define the perimeter is considered narrowing a previously incomplete definition. This narrowing is new matter, since the original disclosure did not use this definition, and the definition provided in Claim 1 would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the limitation is considered new matter.
As to 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 & 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…the perimeter being defined by an outer boundary of a transverse cross- section of the main plate taken normal to the thickness (t)”, in Lines 2-5, 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 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.
It is also noted Applicant amended in the perimeter is defined by an outer boundary of the main plate. Aside from this limitation being new matter, as described above, it is not clear what structure or features define the claimed outer boundary. This is not a term used in the original disclosure, and it would not be inherently clear to one of ordinary skill in the art how to interpret the term in light of the specification. Again, when viewing instant application Figure 3, it would be reasonable to broadly interpret any of, but not exclusive of, the multiple potential perimeters identified above as potential outer boundaries. As such, the limitation provides no clarity on how to interpret the claimed perimeter, and the term itself is indefinite.
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 8-9, 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 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 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), the perimeter (the perimeter of bearing support surface 84 in Figure 17) being defined by an outer boundary (the outer boundary coinciding with the perimeter of bearing support surface 84 in Figure 17) being of a transverse cross-section (Figure 17) of the main plate (48) taken normal to (as shown in Figure 17) the thickness (the width of the main plate 48 between flanges 48a/48b, as viewed in Figure 17);
a transverse opening (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 a second fluid pump housing section (any of the fluid pump housing sections shown in Figure 13) to the fluid pump housing section (46) to form (Paragraph 0094) a fluid pump housing (the combination of fluid pump housing sections 46, as described in Paragraph 0094, and shown in Figure 13).
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 the transverse opening (84) is a crank shaft bore (as shown in Figure 40, where crankshaft 16 extends through transverse opening 84).
As to 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 housing section (46).
As to 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 housing section (46) without the use of any plates or skins welded therebetween (as described in Paragraph 0094).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, Applicant overcame most of the drawing objections, but not all. Additionally, a new objection was presented above as a result of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the drawing objections regarding each of the claimed percentage of perimeters the flanges extend along, Applicant argues instant application Figure 3 shows each of these features. Examiner disagrees.
As explained above, it is not clear how to determine each of the claimed percentages, mostly because it is not clear how to determine where the claimed perimeter begins, ends, or where the perimeter is located on the claimed housing section. Applicant explicitly states “it may be difficult to calculate given the illustrated view and that the Figures are not to scale”. Examiner agrees with this statement, and this statement lies at the heart of most of the objections and rejections. The original disclosure has not provided a clear enough definition of the perimeter for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how to determine the perimeter or how to determine the percentage of anything along the perimeter. As such, this is required in the drawings to understand the claimed invention, but is not provided.
Regarding the 112(a) rejection for Claim 21, Applicant argues it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the intent of the application was to provide an improved housing structure which does not require a skin or plate welded over the structure. It appears Applicant intended to argue for withdrawal of the Claim 22 rejection, not the Claim 21 rejection. Examiner disagrees.
As described in the rejection above, instant application Paragraph 0030 only states the use of the skins or plates is undesirable due to the amount of welding required. The original disclosure neither explicitly state no skins or plates may be used, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art conclude based on the disclosure skins or plates may not be used. For instance, it is reasonable, based on the original disclosure, to weld the respective housing structures together, then weld skins or plates as reinforcement. This scenario would fall within the scope of the original disclosure, but still have skins and plates welded to the structure.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection for Claim 1, Applicant argues the amendment to Claim 1 overcomes the previous rejection. Examiner disagrees.
As explained above, the term “outer boundary” is just as indefinite as the term “perimeter”, or the original term “circumference”. As such, the amendment to the claim only provides more indefinite limitations without clarifying the original claim. This indefiniteness extends to each of the dependent claims, as described above.
Regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant continues to argue Byrnes relies on skins, and does not teach flanges which are continuous or near-continuous around the perimeter of a housing section. Examine disagrees.
Regarding the skins/plates, Byrne Paragraph 0094 explicitly states the skins and plates are not required. Examiner referred to this specific paragraph in the last office action, but Applicant has failed to address this Byrne teaching.
Regarding the continuous or near-continuous flanges around the perimeter, none of the claims have this feature, and it is not clear how Applicant is using the term in the arguments. As such, this argument is moot.
Applicant continues to argue Examiner’s interpretation of the Byrne is that the Byrne flange length may be arbitrarily increased. Examiner disagrees.
Examiner relies on omnicalculator.com to teach this feature. Based off of omnicalculator.com, one of ordinary skill in the art would be understand how to increase the weld strength based on the length of the weld. In Byrnes case, this would entail changing the Byrne flange length to meet the required weld strength. Since the modification is relying on both Byrne and omnicalculator.com, the flange length modification is not arbitrary. Additionally, Applicant should keep in mind, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant continues to teach the application of omnicalculator.com would teach away from changing the length of the Byrne flanges based on the required weld strength. Applicant then states multiple speculative modifications to Byrne are required, but provides no reasoning for these speculative modifications.
First, Applicant states multiple short circumferential welds are required due to the modification to Byrne. Examiner disagrees. Simply extending the length of the Byrne flange would achieve this desired result.
Second, Applicant states skins and plates are required. Again, Byrne Paragraph 0094 explicitly disputes this by stating plates and skins are not required.
Third, Applicant states numerous starts and stops are required. This feature is not claimed, so the argument is moot.
In light of the above, it is clear using the teachings of omnicalculator.com would not teach away from modifying Byrne to teach the claimed invention. 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.
Applicant argues the percentage of the flange along the perimeter is not a result-effective variable, since neither of the references 1) identify the flange specifically as needing to be optimized, 2) any relationship between the flange percentage and housing performance, or 3) eliminating skins.
With respect to the first point, Byrne recognizes flanges as being a welding locations (Byrne Paragraph 0094), and omnicalculator.com recognizes welding location lengths as being a result-effective variable which affects weld strength. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art –a person who is familiar with welding, pressures, structural strength, and manufacturing—would understand if the flanges are for welding, and the length of the weld is a result-effective variable, the length of the flange is also a result-effective variable.
With respect to the second point, the above paragraph inherently results in an optimized housing with respect to the strength between adjacent housing sections.,
With respect to the third point, again, Byrne Paragraph 0094 explicitly states skins and plates are not required.
Applicant continues to argue the claimed invention is counter-conventional, since the claimed invention relies on the elimination of skins. Again, Byrne Paragraph 0094 also teaches this feature.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights