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 .
Application Status
This communication is in response to the Amendment and Request for Reconsideration filed 24 September 2025. Claims 1-5, 17 and 19-21 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 3, 7-14 and 17 have been amended. Claims 16 and 18 are cancelled. Claim 21 is new.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15, 17 and 19-21 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 11, 14, 17, all instances of the term “drive shaft” should read --driveshaft--.
In claims 4 and 5, the term “drive shaft” should read --driveshaft--.
In claim 9, line 17, the term “drive shaft” should read --driveshaft--.
In claim 13, lines 19 and 26, all instances of the term “drive shaft” should read --driveshaft--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-15, 17, and 19-21 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.
In claim 1, the newly added limitation “whereby the parts washer pump consists of the single bearing alone, leaving the second end of the drive shaft with the impeller unsupported” is not supported by the originally filed disclosure in a manner that reasonably conveys that Applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time the application was filed. This negative limitation limiting the entire pump to a single bearing alone is simply not described in the specification in a manner sufficient to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter. Para. 0047 of the spec. states “[t]he mounting tube may also include one or more internal bearings in which the shaft turns” indicating that one or more may be present to support the shaft. However, the pump and motor components of the parts washer typically include internal bearings for the rotor of the motor and shaft of the impeller. This newly added limitation would seemingly contradict and introduce a pump configuration without internal bearings for the pump or motor shafts per se. in this instance Applicant has not described how a SINGLE bearing can support operation of the motor and impeller pump. It appears that Applicant is attempting to limit ONLY the mounting tube bearing for the shaft as described in para. 0047. However, the claim is currently not drafted in this manner. This is a new matter issue.
In claim 9, lines 5-7, the newly added limitation “and positioned to blow air directly on an electric motor winding disposed directly in an airflow path created by the bladed fan” is not supported by the originally filed disclosure in a manner that reasonably conveys that Applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time application was filed. The specification is silent as to describing how the fan is arranged to cool electric motor windings, per se. Para. 0042 of the specification states “[a] conventionally bladed fan 1 may be coupled to a first end of a motor shaft to promote air cooling of the motor .. [a]ir is directed onto the motor 2 and in the example shown the fan 1 turns at the same speed as the motor 2 “. This passage in the specification discusses how air is directed on the motor but the term “windings” is not used anywhere in the specification. With this in mind, one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily be appraised of how the bladed fan is arranged specifically with respect to the internal winding components of the motor. Note that the drawing figures fail to show any winding components of details of the motor stator either. This is a new matter issue.
In claim 13, line 6, the newly added limitation “an unshrouded electric motor” is not supported by the originally filed disclosure in a manner that reasonably conveys that Applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time application was filed. The specification is silent as to describing the motor with or without a shroud. The depictions of the motor in the drawing figures cannot be used to show the presence or absence of a shroud with any degree of support either because the motor is illustrated with what appears to be external housing structure or fins __arguably interpretable as forming a shroud. To these points, since the originally filed specification does not discuss the presence or absence of a shroud, or even define what a shroud is in this context, it is unclear how this newly added limitation modifies the motor configuration. In other words, the structure or lack of structures making up an unshrouded electric motor is not sufficiently defined and supported. Further, claim 17 depends from claim 13 and recites a cover which appears to contradict the motor being unshrouded depending on how the cover is interpreted. This is a new matter issue.
Claim 1-8, 12 and 21 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.
In claim 1, line 23, “the submersible impeller pump” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because a submersible impeller pump has not been recited or defined previously. It is suggested to amend this term to “the submersible impeller pump housing”. Correction is required.
In claim 3, line 2, “the tube” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because claim 1 recites multiple tubes rendering it unclear which tube is referenced herein. Correction is required.1
In claim 6, line 1, “the supporting tube” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because a supporting tube has not been recited previously. It is suggested to amend this to “the support tube”. Correction is required.
In claim 8, line 21, “the impeller pump bottom side aperture” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because an impeller pump bottom side aperture has not been recited previously. An impeller pump housing having a bottom side aperture was previously introduced at lines 17-18. It is suggested to amend this to simply read “the bottom side aperture.” Correction is required.
In claim 8, line 2, “the tube” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because claim 1 recites multiple tubes rendering it unclear which tube is referenced herein. Correction is required.2
In claim 8, line 3, “the shaft” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because a shaft has not been recited previously in this claim or any claim from which this claim depends. Claim 1 recites both a driveshaft and motor shaft rendering if the shaft refers to one of these shafts are another shaft all together. Correction is required.
In claim 12, line 1, “the tube” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because claim 9 recites multiple tubes rendering it unclear which tube is referenced herein. Correction is required.3
In claim 21, line 1, “the shaft of the shaft tube” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because neither a shaft nor a shaft tube have been recited previously in this claim or any claim from which this claim depends. Claim 13 recites both a driveshaft and motor shaft rendering if the shaft refers to one of these shafts are another shaft all together. Correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Zolotukhin, Kasner and the applied art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
However, the application is not in condition for allowance due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), supra.
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 KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 It is suggested that all instances of “the tube” when referring to element 52 in FIG.’s 3-7 should be amended to “bottom tube” or “down tube” for consistency.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.