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 .
Claim Objections
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 claim 18 has been renumbered 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitefield (US Patent No. 5,810,568).
Whitefield teaches:
limitations from claim 15, a motor and pump arrangement (FIG. 6) comprising: a motor (1) and pump housing defined by a cylindrical cavity having an opening at a first end and a bell wall at a second end (FIG. 6), the opening for receiving a motor (20, 26), a pump enclosure (16), and pump (5), such that said pump enclosure spaces said motor from said pump within said motor and pump housing (see FIG. 6); said pump having a rotor (5) comprising a plurality of blades and vanes (C. 5 Lines 66-67) for rotational movement within a fluid passage (chamber in which the rotor 5 is placed, with ports 8, 9), the rotor coupling to a motor shaft (4) of said motor during use; and said fluid passage connecting an input passage (8) to an output passage (9), wherein said fluid passage comprises a cammed surface for axial movement of blades and vanes during rotation of said rotor (C. 5 Line 66 through C. 7 Line 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
872
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
limitations from claim 17, further comprising a pump enclosure (16) having a fluid passage (chamber in which the rotor 5 is placed, with ports 8, 9) for supporting said rotor and an inlet channel (8) in fluid communication with said fluid passage and said input passage, and said pump enclosure further comprising an outlet channel (9) in fluid communication with said fluid passage and said outlet passage (FIG. 3; C. 3 Lines 1-15);
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitefield (US Patent No. 5,810,568) in further view of Ilg (US Patent No. 4,564,338).
Whitefield does not teach a bypass valve;
Ilg teaches a bypass valve (21) between an inlet port (9) and an outlet port (18; C. 2 Lines 27-52);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a bypass valve in the pump of Whitefield, as taught by Ilg, in order to relive overpressures within the pump and pumping system safely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, and 4-14 are allowed.
The closest prior art does not teach the limitations of claim 1, including the linear taper required by the most recent amendment. The specification further teaches (paragraph 55) that the taper provides a critical function of promoting convective heat transfer away from the motor and towards the pump enclosure. Therefore, it would not be merely a design choice to modify Berry and/or Burch.
The examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments, that the claim limitations of Claim 8 are not taught by the prior art (see response page 14-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Whitefield does not teach the limitations of claim 15. Applicant argues that there is no fluid passage connecting input passage 8 and output passage 9 of Whitefield (Page 12 of the response). Applicant further argues “Moreover, the dashed lines suggest that the “passage 8” is not in fluid communication with structure 9 because “passage 8” is behind the structure 9 and not any type of aperture or opening”. The examiner disagrees.
Whitefield teaches a rotor assembly (5) including a cam (including, necessarily, a cammed surface) having vanes (C. 5 Line 66 through C. 6 Line 1), and an inlet port (8) and discharge port (9) below and above the rotor respectively (see FIG. 1-2). Whitefield describes the ports as “To one side of the pump rotor 5 a port plate 7 is provided which defines the low and high pressure ports into and out of the pump rotor.”; therefore the ports are inlets into the pump chamber and out of the pump chamber respectively. The pump rotor chamber acts as a passage between the two. The examiner maintains the rejection in view of Whitefield.
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 CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights