3DETAILED ACTION
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 office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on December 8, 2025. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 19, cancelled Claim 16, and added Claim 21. Claims 1 – 15 and 17 – 21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous drawing objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. New drawing objections are presented below, necessitated by amendment.
Previous specification objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
Previous claim objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
Previous 112b rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. New 112 rejections are presented below, necessitated by amendment.
With regards to the 102 rejection of Claims 1 and 15, applicant argues that the Nishiguchi reference does not teach the newly added feature of the insulation being radially between the primary channel and the electrical coil. Applicant argues that Nishiguchi teaches laminate bundles enclosed on their tops and bottoms but not insulated where they directly abut flow paths 66 or 62, pointing to two Fanning references that teach such a structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Fanning may teach a certain insulation structure, that structure cannot be imputed onto Nishiguchi. Nishiguchi explicitly teaches that “[t]he inner stator coil 61 is … enclosed by a material having high electric insulation at a high temperature such as an inorganic ceramic series material” (Col. 4, Lines 54 – 59). Oxford defines enclosed as “to surround or close off on all sides”. One of ordinary skill, relying on the plain meaning of the word enclose, would conclude that the insulation of Nishiguchi includes a portion that is radially between the primary channel and the electrical coil, given that the insulation completely encloses the coil. It is further noted that the end of the coils which abut the flow passage 66 are “completely covered with a sealing member 64 made of such as austenite stainless to be isolated from the liquid metal” (Col. 4, Line 66+). If this radial end of the coil was not electrically isolated, then electricity would flow through the stainless seal sealing member and short circuit the coil, further lending credence to the notion that the all sides of the coil are electrically insulated. Previous grounds of rejection stand.
With regards to Claim 102 rejection of Claim 9, applicant’s amendments overcome the previous grounds of rejection. New grounds or rejection are presented below, incorporating the Matsuzawa reference.
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 plurality of channels each sharing no fluid source or destination with one another throughout the pump so as to be entirely separate throughout the pump, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the plurality of channels each share no fluid source or destination with one another throughout the pump so as to be entirely separate throughout the pump. While this feature is discussed and depicted in the disclosure (see e.g. Figure 5), Claim 9, upon which Claim 14 depends, is amended to include wherein flow paths of the pump are shaped to reverse the direction of all of the fluid driven through the pump. Figure 3 of the application does not depict this since channels 130 and 131 share a fluid source. Figure 5 does not depict this since there is no reverse of the direction of all fluid driven through the pump. Such an embodiment 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites electrical insulation on the electrical coil providing the electrical isolation, wherein the coil is between two of the fluid coolant channels in a radial direction, and wherein the electrical insulation is between the coil and both of the channels in the radial direction. Use of the phrase both of the channels makes the metes and bounds of the claim unascertainable because it is unclear which of the channels the word “both” refers to. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting …and wherein the electrical insulation is between the coil and the two of the channels in the radial direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishiguchi (US 5094803).
With regards to Claims 1 and 15:
Nishiguchi discloses an electromagnetic pump (pump 60, Figures 3, 4) for driving a fluid (liquid metal, Col. 4, Line 25) providing enhanced cooling, and method thereof, the pump comprising:
a primary channel (annular passage 66) configured to receive the fluid and expel the fluid from the pump;
an electrical coil (outer stator coil 59, inner stator coil 61) around the primary channel and configured to develop and induce a magnetic field in the primary channel (Col. 6, Lines 6 – 43) that drives the fluid through the pump (Col. 1, Line 54: “an electric current is conducted to the stator coil from an external power source to thereby generate a magnetic field to cause the circulation of the liquid metal”);
electrical insulation about the electrical coil (Col. 4, Line 54: “The inner stator coil 61 is … enclosed by a material having high electric insulation at a high temperature such as an inorganic ceramic series material”); and
a secondary channel (cooling bypass passages 69 or central through hole 62a) passing on a different vertical side of the coils (as seen in Figure 3), and configured to receive the fluid and expel the fluid from the pump, wherein the insulation is radially between the primary channel and the electrical coil (‘enclosed”), so as to sink heat from the insulation to the fluid in the primary channel (Col. 6, Lines 16 – 22: “excessive or abnormal temperature rise in the respective stator coils 61 and 59 and, hence, the inner and outer iron cores 62 and 67, can be definitely eliminated by the backward flow of the liquid metal from the discharge side of the pump to the suction side due to the location of the liquid metal bypass passages 62a, 65 and 69 through the heat removing function”);
resulting in a transferring heat in a first line from the electrical circuit, through electrical insulation, and to a first of the channels in the pump, and in a second line from the electrical circuit, through the electrical insulation, and to a second of the channels in the pump (insulation “encloses” the coil, and the coil radiates heat to every channel as per Col. 6, Lines 16 – 22).
With regards to Claim 2:
Nishiguchi discloses the secondary channel is positioned adjacent to the electrical coil, and wherein the electrical coil is configured to develop the magnetic field in the secondary channel (see Figure 3, both bypass passage 69 and through hole 62a are positioned adjacent to coils 59, 61, thus subjecting the passages to a magnetic field).
With regards to Claim 3:
Nishiguchi discloses a stator (cores 67, 62, Figure 3) between the primary channel and the secondary channel, wherein the coil passes through the stator and is insulated on all sides by the insulation (Col. 4, Line 54: “enclosed by a material having high electric insulation at a high temperature such as an inorganic ceramic series material”), and wherein the stator is configured to generate the magnetic field through induction (Col. 6, Lines 6 – 43, liquid metal and coils are not in contact with one another).
With regards to Claim 4:
Nishiguchi discloses the pump includes a plurality of the stators (cores 67, 62) and a plurality of the coils (coils 59, 61) within the stators, wherein the primary channel (66) passes adjacent to a first side of one of the stators and the secondary channel (69, 62a) passes adjacent to a second side of the one of the stators, and wherein the first side and the second side are opposite each other on the one of the stators (see Figure 3, channels 69 and 66 are on opposite sides of core 67 and coils 59, and channels 62a and 66 are on opposite sides of core 62 and coils 61), wherein the stator is insulated from the coils by the insulator (Col. 4, Line 54: “enclosed by a material having high electric insulation at a high temperature such as an inorganic ceramic series material”)
With regards to Claim 7:
Nishiguchi discloses the primary channel is parallel to and flows into the secondary channel to loop around the coil (is Figure 3, channel 66 is parallel to and flows into both channels 69 and 62a).
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 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 of this title, 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 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiguchi (US 5094803) in view of Davidson (US 3885890).
With regards to Claims 5 and 17:
Nishiguchi discloses a casing (cylinder 73, Figure 4) forming the external surface of the pump (as shown in Figures 3, 4), wherein the casing is configured to be immersed in liquid metal without failure (see Figure 1, the outer cylinder 73 of the pump 60 is intentionally partially immersed in liquid metal having a liquid surface 44, indicating that it is immersed without failure and under proper operation); and an inlet manifold (pipe 47 and portion 45 of shell 40, as shown in Figure 1) directing the fluid into the casing.
Nishiguchi does teach the liquid is a liquid metal (Col. 4, Line 25), but does not teach the liquid being liquid sodium at over 300 degrees C. Davidson teaches a similar electromagnetic pump (Figures 1, 2) including a first channel (20) and a second channel (13, see Col. 4, Line 25: “The central bore 13 in the iron core, may be used for a return flow pipe or for any other purpose desired. Possibly, the bore 13 could be used for cooling purposes”) arranged on opposite sides of a stator (core 12) including a coil (windings 18) with insulation (24). Davidson teaches that the pump is used to propel a liquid sodium and immersed in the liquid sodium at 300 deg C without failure (Col. 1, Lines 5: “the present invention relates to an annular linear induction pump which may for example be used to pump molten sodium at temperatures up to 650.degree.C”). Sodium is widely used in the nuclear industry because of its relatively low melting point, its high heat capacity, and its weak neutron absorption. MPEP 2143B teaches it is obvious to substitute known elements for one another in order to yield predictable results. In this case, given the teachings of Davidson, it would have been obvious to substitute the unknown type of liquid metal in Nishiguchi for the liquid sodium of Davidson in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 18:
The Nishiguchi modification of Claim 17 teaches the liquid sodium is driven by the inducing so as to flow through a core of a liquid sodium nuclear reactor (abstract of Nishiguchi: “liquid-metal coolant reactor”, Col. 1, Line 9 of Davidson: “A preferred application of such a pump is as a prime mover for sodium coolant in fast nuclear reactors”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiguchi (US 5094803) in view of Matsuzawa (JP S62-217853).
With regards to Claim 6:
Nishiguchi does not explicitly disclose the primary and the secondary channels are both annular about a vertical axis of the pump and nested radially, instead only disclosing that the primary channel (66) is annular about a vertical axis, with channels (69) and (62a) being cylindrical or polygonal. Matsuzawa (Figure 4) teaches a similar electromagnetic pump including outer coils (35), inner coils (42), outer stators (36), inner stators (43), and intermediate cores (38, 39). Matsuzawa teaches an annular primary channel (30) on one side of the intermediate magnetic core and an annular secondary channel (31) on another side of the intermediate magnetic core, the primary and secondary channels being aligned about an axis and nested radially from that axis (see Figure 4). Annular passages would increase surface area to the cores compared to, e.g. a cylindrical shape as shown in passage (62a) of Nishiguchi. In Nishiguchi, the innermost portion of the liquid metal in passage (62a) is not contributing as much cooling effect to the core, and the smaller sized passages (69) also have low surface area exposure to the cores. Making the shape of the passages (69) and (62a) of Nishiguchi annular would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art in order to yield the predictable benefit of improving heat transfer from the cores/stators to the liquid metal due to the increase surface area between the passages and the cores/stators.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiguchi (US 5094803) in view of Hashimoto (JP S59-002563).
With regards to Claims 8 and 20:
Nishiguchi does not explicitly disclose the primary channel shares no fluid source or destination with the secondary channel throughout the pump so as to be entirely separate from the secondary channel throughout the pump. Hashimoto (Figure 3) teaches an electromagnetic induction pump including a magnetic field generated by stator coils (4) and a core (2), and a primary channel (B) wherein liquid sodium is pressurized “due to the interference between the induced current and the magnetic field, and is pumped forward” (Page 3 of English translation). Hashimoto further teaches a secondary channel (A) that acts solely to cool the magnetic core (2) via a cooling cycle (7), wherein the cooling medium is also liquid sodium driven by the induction pump (Page 3 of English translation: “Liquid sodium sealed as the cooling medium (A) is also pressurized in the isolation vessel (6) in the direction indicated by the arrow (left to right) in the figure by the same action as above, and is pumped from the front end of the vessel into the circulation pipe (7), cooled by the cooler (10), and returned to the rear end of the vessel. The permanent magnet core (2) is cooled by the cooled medium”). As shown in the figure and described on Page 3 of the English translation, the primary channel shares no fluid source or destination with the secondary channel throughout the pump so as to be entirely separate from the secondary channel throughout the pump. MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, having a dedicated cooling cycle cooling one of the magnetic elements in the induction pump is known in the art via Hashimoto. Furthermore, using the same fluid driven by the pump in the primary channel as the cooling medium in the secondary channel is also known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Nishiguchi by adding a separate cooling cycle and associated channel to the induction pump to cool one of the stator coils in order to yield the predictable benefit of there being “no risk of the liquid to be pumped falling under the pressure, and even high-temperature liquid sodium at 600° C. or higher can be pumped without any problems” (see Page 4 of English translation of Hashimoto).
Claims 9 – 11, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzawa (JP H04-164294) in view of Nishiguchi (US 5094803).
With regards to Claim 9:
Matsuzawa discloses an electromagnetic pump (Figure 4) for driving a fluid (“coolant”, see English translation) providing enhanced cooling, the pump comprising:
an electrical coil (coil group 13) configured to develop a magnetic field that drives the fluid through the pump (see Page 3 of English translation);
a plurality of fluid coolant channels (annular flow passage 12, central flow passage 15) surrounding the electrical coil, wherein the channels are thermally and magnetically un-isolated from the coil such that the coil develops a magnetic driving field in and sinks heat to each of the plurality of channels when provided with an electrical current (must be magnetically un-isolated to function as desired, see Page 4 of English translation for thermal un-isolation: “heat dissipation from the coil groups 13, 14, inner iron core [10], and outer iron core [11] to the surrounding primary coolant is achieved only by contact heat transfer between the inner iron core [10] and the inner duct 17, contact heat transfer between the outer duct 18 and the outer iron core 11, radiation, natural convection of the gas sealed in the electromagnetic pump, etc.”, indicating that thermal transfer occurs from the coils to the fluid), and wherein flow paths of the pump are shaped to reverse the direction of all of the fluid driven through the pump (see Figure 4, fluid enters annual flow passage 12 and reverses direction to flow through central flow passage 15 and exit the pump 7).
Matsuzawa is silent on electrical isolated between the coil and the plurality of fluid coolant channels. One could argue that a sealed gas (19) is present, effectively creating an “air gap” which acts as electrical insulation. Nevertheless, Nishiguchi teaches an electromagnetic pump (60, Figure 3, 4) in which electrical coils (59, 61) are electrical isolated (see Col. 4, Line 54+: “The inner stator coil 61 is … enclosed by a material having high electric insulation at a high temperature such as an inorganic ceramic series material”) from fluids in channels (62a, 69, 66). Electrically isolating the coils on all sides prevents shorts and ensures proper distribution of electricity through the coils, as is widely known in the art. MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Matsuzawa by electrically insulating the coils on all sides to yield the predictable benefit described above.
With regards to Claim 10:
The Matsuzawa modification of Claim 9 teaches electrical insulation on the coil (see Col. 4, Line 54+ of Nishiguchi), wherein the electrical insulation provides the electrical isolation from the channels and sinks heat to the channels.
With regards to Claim 11:
The Matsuzawa modification of Claim 9 teaches the pump includes a plurality of the coils (coils 13, 14, Figure 4 of Matsuzawa), the pump further comprising: a stator (cores 10, 11) through which the plurality of coils pass, wherein the stator is insulated from the coils by the insulation (see Col. 4, Line 54+ of Nishiguchi: coils “enclosed by a material having high electric insulation”).
With regards to Claim 13:
The Matsuzawa modification of Claim 9 teaches the plurality of channels are parallel and flow into one another to loop around the coil (see Figure 4 of Matsuzawa, flow passages 12 15 are parallel and passage 12 flows into passage 15).
With regards to Claim 21:
The Matsuzawa modification of Claim 9 teaches electrical insulation (see Col. 4, Line 54+ of Nishiguchi: coils “enclosed by a material having high electric insulation” on the electrical coil providing the electrical isolation, wherein the coil is between two of the fluid coolant channels in a radial direction (see coil 13 of Matsuzawa between fluid passages 12, 15), and wherein the electrical insulation is between the coil and both of the channels in the radial direction (the insulation encloses the coil as per Nishiguchi, thereby being between the coil and both channels).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzawa (JP H04-164294) in view of Nishiguchi (US 5094803), further in view of Matsuzawa (JP S62-217853 – hereafter Matsuzawa’853).
With regards to Claim 12:
The Matsuzawa modification of Claim 9 does not explicitly teach the plurality of channels are annular about a vertical axis of the pump and nested radially, instead only disclosing that the flow passage (12) is annular about a vertical axis, with central passage (15) being cylindrical. Matsuzawa’853 (Figure 4) teaches a similar electromagnetic pump including outer coils (35), inner coils (42), outer stators (36), inner stators (43), and intermediate cores (38, 39). Matsuzawa teaches an annular primary channel (30) on one side of the intermediate magnetic core and an annular secondary channel (31) on another side of the intermediate magnetic core, the primary and secondary channels being aligned about an axis and nested radially from that axis (see Figure 4). Annular passages would increase surface area to the cores compared to, e.g. a cylindrical shape as shown in flow passage (15) of Matsuzawa. Making the shape of the passage (15) of Matsuzawa annular would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art in order to yield the predictable benefit of improving heat transfer from the cores/stators to the liquid metal due to the increase surface area between the passages and the cores/stators.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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 on (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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Sunday, January 11, 2026