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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 6, and 7 – 20 have been amend.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claim 21 has been newly introduced.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14 and 19 recite the limitation “wherein the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed,” this limitation should be recited as “wherein the material from which the conveyor rotor is formed
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 14 and 19 recite the limitation “wherein the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed,” which is identical (when interpreted as discussed in the aforesaid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection) to the limitation previously recited by parent claim 1 without introducing additional subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1, 2, 4 – 6, 8, 9, and 11 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,989,002, “Nied-Menninger,” in view of US 2019/0301452, “Akatsuka,” and US 2023/0062955, “Parrish.”
Regarding Claim 1: Nied-Menninger discloses a sliding-vane pump (10) (Figure 1) with a housing (12) in which a cylindrical fluid chamber (14) is formed, a conveyor rotor (16) which is rotatable in the fluid chamber (Cl. 3, ln. 22, “The drive shaft 18 can be driven by a drive device--not shown--for instance, an electric motor, so that the rotor 16 can be placed in rotation within the pump chamber 14”) and is guided on a circumferential wall of the fluid chamber (26), wherein in the fluid chamber, the conveyor rotor delimits at least one conveyor chamber (48) having a volume which is variable by rotation of the conveyor rotor (Cl. 5, ln. 2, “chamber 48 is divided into two areas 50 and 52 by the blocking vane 30 which rests with its rounded edge in sealing manner against the circumferential surface 20. Corresponding to the direction of rotation 38 of the rotor 16, the areas 50 and 52 change their volumes”), and with a drive motor (Cl. 3, ln. 22, “The drive shaft 18 can be driven by a drive device--not shown--for instance, an electric motor, so that the rotor 16 can be placed in rotation within the pump chamber 14”) configured to drive a drive shaft (18), wherein the conveyor rotor is arranged positionally fixedly on the drive shaft (18) and the drive shaft is radially mounted in the housing by means of the conveyor rotor (As shown in at least Figure 1; As further discussed in at least Cl. 5, ln. 47, “no transverse forces act on the rotor 16 and its drive shaft 18. There is thus also not required any special mounting for conducting such transverse forces of the rotor 16 or the drive shaft 18 away;” and Cl. 5, ln. 56, “Due to the mounting of the rotor 16 free of transverse forces, an optimal guidance of the rotor 16 via the separating regions 24 on the circumferential wall 26 of the pump chamber 14 is present. The separating regions 24 therefore have a constant sealing action between two adjacent chambers 48. Furthermore, the material stress for the rotor 16 and the casing 12 is reduced during operation.”); however, Nied-Menninger is silent as to the details of the driving motor and therefore fails to explicitly disclose having a rotor which is attached rotationally fixedly on a drive shaft; Nied-Menninger is silent as to the material properties of the conveyor rotor and is therefore silent as to wherein the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed.
Akatsuka teaches a van pump (1) (Figures 1 – 5) wherein the vane pump is driven by an electric motor (100) comprising a rotor (5) coupled to a drive shaft (4) and driven by a stator (6) and wherein the drive shaft is coupled to a pump rotor (31) of the vane pump (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 2; [0019]).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have utilized the motor of Akatsuka as the driver of the pump of Nied-Menninger with the predicted results that such a drive motor will be capable of providing the rotation forces need to operate the conveyor rotor of Nied-Menninger in a manner well known in the art. It is further noted that such an arrangement is viewed as a simple substitution of one known driving element for that of another (i.e. the motor of Nied-Menninger for the motor of Akatsuka). Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Accordingly Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Once combined, Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, makes obvious having a rotor which is attached rotationally fixedly on a drive shaft; however, Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, is silent as to the material properties of the conveyor rotor and is therefore silent as to wherein the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed.
Parrish teaches a pumping apparatus (20) (Figures 1 – 7) which provides a pumping action through the interaction of a conveyor rotor (30) rotatable within a housing (34), wherein the pumping action is formed by a sealing surface interaction between the rotor and the housing in a manner similar to that of Nied-Menninger, and wherein the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed ([0034], “the housing material is selected to have a relatively low coefficient of thermal expansion and the rotor material is selected to have a relatively high coefficient of thermal expansion. In one embodiment, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the rotor material is approximately twice that of the housing material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have made the material of the conveyor rotor of Nied-Menninger from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed, as taught by Parrish, with the predicted results that such an arrangement will improve the running face clearance over a wide temperature range (Parrish, [0034], “The result is tailorable such as to achieve low torque requirements at colder temperatures and simultaneously to achieve high volumetric efficiencies at hotter temperatures. In embodiments, the outcomes are a result of managing clearances, such as the running face clearance, over a wide temperature range.”).
Regarding Claim 2: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 1; once combined, Akatsuka further teaches wherein the drive shaft is radially mounted in the housing (The housing of Akatsuka forms a portion of the housing of the combined apparatus, once combined. The housing of Akatsuka is discussed in at least [0017] and shown in at least Figures 1 and 2) at a further bearing point (2a, 2b) ([0016], “driving shaft 4 that is rotatably supported by a motor housing 3 via bearings 2a and 2b”) axially spaced from the conveyor rotor (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 2; The further bearing point is shown being axially spaced, along the axis of the drive shaft, from the conveyor rotor of the pump such that once combined, the further bearing point will continue to be axially spaced in an equivalent manner).
Regarding Claim 4: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 1; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein the conveyor rotor has three circumferentially spaced, cylindrical guide faces (24) (At least three cylindrical guide faces are shown in at least Figure 1) which guide the conveyor rotor on the circumferential wall of the fluid chamber (Cl. 4, ln. 56, “In the area of the separating regions 24, the outer circumference of which corresponds practically to the inner circumference of the circumferential wall 26”).
Regarding Claim 5: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 1; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein the housing receives two radially displaceably mounted sliding-vanes (30) (At least two sliding-vanes are shown in at least Figure 1) which lie against the conveyor rotor (As shown in at least Figure 1; Cl. 4, ln. 52, “blocking vanes 30 are pressed by the compression springs 32 against the circumferential surface 20 of the rotor 16”), wherein the sliding-vanes lie diametrically opposite one another (As shown in at least Figure 2; The sliding-vanes are shown diametrically opposed to one another, arranged at 180° intervals).
Regarding Claim 6: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 4; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein the width of the cylindrical guide faces is greater than the width of the sliding-vanes (As shown in at least Figure 1; The guide faces are shown having a larger radial length than the radial length of the sliding-vanes, such that they are interpreted as having a greater width in the radial direction).
Regarding Claim 8: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 1; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein at least one fluid supply channel (36) opens into the fluid chamber from each side in the axial direction (As shown in at least Figure 1; At least one fluid supply channel is shown on each side of the rotor and opening in the axial direction; Cl. 4, ln. 30, “suction inlet 36 is formed by a connection duct 44 conducted through the housing 12 and debouching in a suction connection 46”).
Regarding Claim 9: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 1; once combined, Akatsuka further teaches wherein the drive motor is an electric motor ([0015], “vane pump 100 is driven by a motive force from an electric motor 1”).
Regarding Claim 11: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 2; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein the conveyor rotor has three circumferentially spaced, cylindrical guide faces (24) (At least three cylindrical guide faces are shown in at least Figure 1) which guide the conveyor rotor on the circumferential wall of the fluid chamber (Cl. 4, ln. 56, “In the area of the separating regions 24, the outer circumference of which corresponds practically to the inner circumference of the circumferential wall 26”).
Regarding Claim 12: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 2; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein the housing receives two radially displaceably mounted sliding-vanes (30) (At least two sliding-vanes are shown in at least Figure 1) which lie against the conveyor rotor (As shown in at least Figure 1; Cl. 4, ln. 52, “blocking vanes 30 are pressed by the compression springs 32 against the circumferential surface 20 of the rotor 16”), wherein the sliding-vanes lie diametrically opposite one another (As shown in at least Figure 2; The sliding-vanes are shown diametrically opposed to one another, arranged at 180° intervals).
Regarding Claim 13: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 5; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein the width of the cylindrical guide faces is greater than the width of the sliding-vanes (As shown in at least Figure 1; The guide faces are shown having a larger radial length than the radial length of the sliding-vanes, such that they are interpreted as having a greater width in the radial direction).
Regarding Claim 14: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 2; Nied-Menninger in view of Parrish makes obvious wherein the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed as discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 2; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein at least one fluid supply channel (36) opens into the fluid chamber from each side in the axial direction (As shown in at least Figure 1; At least one fluid supply channel is shown on each side of the rotor and opening in the axial direction; Cl. 4, ln. 30, “suction inlet 36 is formed by a connection duct 44 conducted through the housing 12 and debouching in a suction connection 46”).
Regarding Claim 16: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 2; once combined, Akatsuka further teaches wherein the drive motor is an electric motor ([0015], “vane pump 100 is driven by a motive force from an electric motor 1”).
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,989,002, “Nied-Menninger,” in view of US 2019/0301452, “Akatsuka,” US 2023/0062955, “Parrish,” and US 2022/0065249, “Finsterle.”
Regarding Claim 3: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 1; however, Nied-Menninger is silent as to the connection between the conveyor rotor and the drive shaft such that it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the conveyor rotor is axially fixed on the drive shaft and, together with the housing, forms an axial bearing for the rotor.
Finsterle teaches a motor (20) pump (10) unit (Figures 1 – 3) where a conveyor rotor (14) ([0071], “delivery member (14) is an externally toothed internal gear (14)”) of the pump is rotated by a drive shaft (4) of the motor, wherein the drive shaft is coupled to a motor rotor (24), and wherein the rotational movement against a stator element of the pump (13) ([0071], “delivery device (10) comprises at least a second delivery member (13), wherein the second delivery member (13) is an internally toothed external gear (13) which surrounds the internal gear (14)”) and the sealing of the pump rotor against housing elements (1, 12), wherein the rotor and pumping chamber are arranged in an equivalent manner as the rotor and pumping chamber of Nied-Menninger, and further teaches wherein the conveyor rotor is axially fixed on the drive shaft and, together with the housing, forms an axial bearing for the rotor ([0069], “delivery member (14) is non-rotationally connected to the drive shaft (4), preferably such that it is fixed against shifting in the axial direction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have arranged the connection between the conveyor rotor and the drive shaft or Nied-Menninger, such that the elements are axially fixed, as taught by Finsterle, as such a connection arrangement will be capable of joining the two pieces together such that they remain in axial and rotary alignment in a manner well known in the art.
Once combined, Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, Parrish, and Finsterle makes obvious wherein the conveyor rotor is axially fixed on the drive shaft and, together with the housing, forms an axial bearing for the rotor. Once combined with the joining method as taught by Finsterle, the conveyor rotor of Nied-Menninger will be fixed in the pumping chamber such that the conveyor rotor will also act as an axial bearing for the rotor as they two elements are axially fixed.
Regarding Claim 10: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 2; however, Nied-Menninger is silent as to the connection between the conveyor rotor and the drive shaft such that it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the conveyor rotor is axially fixed on the drive shaft and, together with the housing, forms an axial bearing for the rotor.
Finsterle teaches a motor (20) pump (10) unit (Figures 1 – 3) where a conveyor rotor (14) ([0071], “delivery member (14) is an externally toothed internal gear (14)”) of the pump is rotated by a drive shaft (4) of the motor, wherein the drive shaft is coupled to a motor rotor (24), and wherein the rotational movement against a stator element of the pump (13) ([0071], “delivery device (10) comprises at least a second delivery member (13), wherein the second delivery member (13) is an internally toothed external gear (13) which surrounds the internal gear (14)”) and the sealing of the pump rotor against housing elements (1, 12), wherein the rotor and pumping chamber are arranged in an equivalent manner as the rotor and pumping chamber of Nied-Menninger, and further teaches wherein the conveyor rotor is axially fixed on the drive shaft and, together with the housing, forms an axial bearing for the rotor ([0069], “delivery member (14) is non-rotationally connected to the drive shaft (4), preferably such that it is fixed against shifting in the axial direction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have arranged the connection between the conveyor rotor and the drive shaft or Nied-Menninger, such that the elements are axially fixed, as taught by Finsterle, as such a connection arrangement will be capable of joining the two pieces together such that they remain in axial and rotary alignment in a manner well known in the art.
Once combined, Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, Parrish, and Finsterle makes obvious wherein the conveyor rotor is axially fixed on the drive shaft and, together with the housing, forms an axial bearing for the rotor. Once combined with the joining method as taught by Finsterle, the conveyor rotor of Nied-Menninger will be fixed in the pumping chamber such that the conveyor rotor will also act as an axial bearing for the rotor as they two elements are axially fixed.
Regarding Claim 17: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, Parrish, and Finsterle teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 3; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein the conveyor rotor has three circumferentially spaced, cylindrical guide faces (24) (At least three cylindrical guide faces are shown in at least Figure 1) which guide the conveyor rotor on the circumferential wall of the fluid chamber (Cl. 4, ln. 56, “In the area of the separating regions 24, the outer circumference of which corresponds practically to the inner circumference of the circumferential wall 26”).
Regarding Claim 18: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, Parrish, and Finsterle teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 3; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein the housing receives two radially displaceably mounted sliding-vanes (30) (At least two sliding-vanes are shown in at least Figure 1) which lie against the conveyor rotor (As shown in at least Figure 1; Cl. 4, ln. 52, “blocking vanes 30 are pressed by the compression springs 32 against the circumferential surface 20 of the rotor 16”), wherein the sliding-vanes lie diametrically opposite one another (As shown in at least Figure 2; The sliding-vanes are shown diametrically opposed to one another, arranged at 180° intervals).
Regarding Claim 19: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, Parrish, and Finsterle teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 3; Nied-Menninger in view of Parrish makes obvious wherein the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed as discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, Parrish, and Finsterle teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 3; Nied-Menninger further discloses wherein at least one fluid supply channel (36) opens into the fluid chamber from each side in the axial direction (As shown in at least Figure 1; At least one fluid supply channel is shown on each side of the rotor and opening in the axial direction; Cl. 4, ln. 30, “suction inlet 36 is formed by a connection duct 44 conducted through the housing 12 and debouching in a suction connection 46”).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,989,002, “Nied-Menninger,” in view of US 2019/0301452, “Akatsuka,” US 2023/0062955, “Parrish,” and US 2004/0028547, “Wilk.”
Regarding Claim 21: Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, teaches the sliding-vane pump according to claim 1; however, once combined, Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, makes obvious an arrangement wherein the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed, but does not explicitly disclose or teach wherein the housing and the conveyor rotor are made from different plastics.
Wilk teaches a sliding vane pump, similar to that of Nied-Menninger, comprising a rotor (50) arranged within a housing (12) and further teaches the rotor and the housing are made from plastic (At least [0046], “stator housing 12, rotor 50, vanes 80 and side plates 100 are all made from plastic”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have made the conveyor rotor and the housing from plastic, as taught by Wilk, as such an arrangement will allow for decreased production costs and overall weight of the pump (Wilk, [0046], “The use of plastics to produce these main components of rotary pump 10 can substantially reduce production costs. Plastic components can also reduce the overall weight of rotary pump 10.“).
Once combined with the material choice teachings of Parrish (different thermal conductivity) and Wilk (plastic), Nied-Menninger, in view of Akatsuka, and Parrish, make obvious an arrangement wherein the housing and the conveyor rotor are made from different plastics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025.06.20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on page 6 of their Remarks, that the applied art fails to teach (a) a housing in which a cylindrical fluid chamber is formed; (b) a conveyor rotor which is rotatable in the fluid chamber and is guided on a circumferential wall of the fluid chamber; and (c), the conveyor rotor is formed from a material which has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the material from which the housing is formed.
Applicant recites features of Nied-Menninger, on page 7 of their Remarks, without providing any context or discussion as to how the recited features differ from the structural features of at least (a) and (b):
PNG
media_image1.png
306
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nied-Menninger clearly discloses a housing (12) in which a cylindrical fluid chamber (14), of argument (a), in at least Figure 1, and Cl. 3, ln. 34, “The maximum diameter of the rotor 16 is dimensioned in such a manner that its outside diameter in the region of the separating regions 24 practically corresponds to the inside diameter of the circumferential wall 26 of the chamber 14.” Nied-Menninger further clearly discloses a conveyor rotor (16) which is rotatable in the fluid chamber (14) and is guided on a circumferential wall of the fluid chamber (26), of argument (b), in at least Figure 1, Cl. 3, ln. 22, “The drive shaft 18 can be driven by a drive device--not shown--for instance, an electric motor, so that the rotor 16 can be placed in rotation within the pump chamber 14,” and Cl. 5, ln. 56, “Due to the mounting of the rotor 16 free of transverse forces, an optimal guidance of the rotor 16 via the separating regions 24 on the circumferential wall 26 of the pump chamber 14 is present.” Applicant has failed to provide any substantive remarks as to how Nied-Menninger fails to disclose either of features (a) or (b) of claim 1.
Applicant argues, on page 8 of their Remarks, that Parrish fails to provide motivation to combine the teachings of the housing and rotor material choices into the apparatus of Nied-Menninger, and Nied-Menninger already discloses an arrangement designed to mitigate transverse forces within the apparatus:
PNG
media_image2.png
516
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nied-Menninger discloses an arrangement to reduce or mitigate transverse or radial forces in at least Cl. 5, ln. 36 – 64. This arrangement is through the creation of the pumping chambers at opposing side of the axial center of the rotor such that the radial forces will tend to cancel one another as the forces created in the opposing pumping chambers “are always equally large in precisely opposite chambers.” Parrish teaches a similar rotor and housing arrangement, as discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1, and further teaches an optimization of material choices to balance forces/clearances between the rotor and the housing at varying temperature conditions. The clearance between the guiding surfaces (24) and circumferential wall (26) of Nied-Menninger presents equivalent structure to that of the outer circumfrential surface of rotor (30) and the mating surface of the equivilant housing element (32) of Parrish. Parrish further provides teachings as to how the material choices, specifically those of thermal conductivity, are specifically chosen to optimize “desired performance characteristic outcomes.” Making such adjustments to maintain or optimize the clearances between the aforesaid elements will act to keep the clearances within designed tolerances and will not add transverse forces to the rotor of Nied-Menninger as alleged by Applicant. The maintaining of such clearances will allow the pump to operate over an intended range of temperatures while optimizing the sealing at the clearance surfaces such that the opposing chambers of Nied-Menninger will continue to produce largely equal and opposite radial forces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0267705 – Pump with housing and rotor formed of plastic
US 2006/0051228 – Pump with housing and rotor formed of plastic
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 BENJAMIN DOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0900 - 1700.
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.
/BENJAMIN DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2025.08.14
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 8/15/2025