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 .
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6 of the remarks, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and rejections of Claims 12, 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and rejections of Claims 12, 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 6-7 of the remarks, filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As best understood, Applicant argues that the orifice vaporizer and valve are to be separate elements and amends to further reflect this. This appears to be sufficient to overcome the previous interpretation. However, it is not believed to overcome the art of record since Bush (US 2005/0198997 A1) teaches a vaporizer while Xing et al. (US 2017/0234332 A1) and Bond et al. (US 5,658,127 A) teaches a controllable valve.
The assertion of Bush desiring integrated valves for improved efficiency does not appear to be supported by any citation. The argument is found to be unpersuasive for lacking sufficient evidence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Line 23 of Claim 1 and Line 23 of Claim 10 recite “the cooling spur”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, since it has not been previously recited. It is unclear if this intends to refer to the previously recited “cooling spur conduit” or requiring a new limitation. For purposes of examination, it will be treated as the same or part of the conduit.
Claims 3, 5-9, 12, and 14-18 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US 4,082,297 A), hereinafter Adams, in view of Bush (US 2005/0198997 A1), hereinafter Bush, Xing et al. (US 2017/0234332 A1), hereinafter Xing, and Bond et al. (US 5,658,127 A), hereinafter Bond.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1-2 of Adams teach a pump system comprising: a pump (6) having a housing (7, 16), a pump chamber (8), a pump outlet (12), and a rotating shaft (14); a mechanical seal assembly (17) coupled to and surrounding the rotating shaft (14) that seals a liquid in the pump chamber (8) from exiting around the rotating shaft (14) and so that liquid in the pump chamber (8) exits the pump (6) via the pump outlet (12), the mechanical seal assembly (17) being disposed in the housing (7, 16) and including: first and second rings (19 and 18) configured so that first ring (19) rotates (note 19 is attached to 23 which is fixed with the shaft) with the shaft (14) and relative to the second ring (18); and a gland plate (unlabeled plate to the right of 16, in which 29 extends through) coupled to the housing (7, 16) such that it defines a cooling chamber (31) between the housing (7, 16) and the first and second rings (19 and 18), the gland plate including a flush inlet (29) that is in fluid communication with the cooling chamber (31); a conduit (27) that fluidly couples the pump outlet (12) to the flush inlet (29) to provide a path for fluid that exits the pump (6) at the pump outlet (12) to be introduced into the cooling chamber (31) via the flush inlet (29); and a heat exchanger (28) disposed along the conduit (27) between the pump outlet (12) and the flush inlet (29) to cool fluid remaining in the conduit (27) before it enters the flush inlet (29) (Col. 5, Line 20 – Col. 6, Line 5).
Adams does not expressly teach a vaporizing heat exchanger disposed such that a cooling portion of the liquid that exits the pump is diverted from the conduit and the cooling portion of liquid is used to cool fluid remaining in the conduit before it enters the flush inlet, wherein the vaporizing heat exchanger includes: a heat exchanger; a manifold fluidly connected to the conduit configured to divert the cooling portion of liquid from the conduit; a cooling spur conduit fluidly connected to the manifold; an orifice vaporizer disposed in the cooling spur that converts the cooling portion of the liquid into a gaseous state as claimed. However, a vaporizing heat exchanger would have been obvious in view of Bush.
Figure 5 of Bush illustrates a known heat exchanger (240) used in conjunction with a pump (202). The heat exchanger is a vaporizing heat exchanger (240) disposed such that a portion of the liquid that exits the pump (202) is diverted (through 250) from the conduit (234) and the portion of liquid is used to cool fluid remaining in the conduit (234), wherein the vaporizing heat exchanger includes: a heat exchanger (240); a manifold (between 250 and 234) fluidly connected to the conduit (234) configured to divert the cooling portion of liquid from the conduit (234); a cooling spur conduit (250 to 242) fluidly connected to the manifold, an orifice vaporizer (250) disposed in the cooling spur (250 to 242) that converts the cooling portion of the liquid into a gaseous state [0020]. (250) is described as an expansion valve, which is known to operate by vaporizing liquid fluid through an expansion, that is formed in the portion interpreted as the cooling spur. Thus, the claimed vaporizing heat exchanger is a type that is known in the art of heat exchangers. One of ordinary skill in the art would simply substitute between known heat exchangers, predictably resulting in heat exchanger that still facilitates the transfer of heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump system taught by Adams by simply substituting the heat exchanger with that of Bush, resulting in a vaporizing heat exchanger disposed such that a cooling portion of the liquid that exits the pump is diverted from the conduit and the cooling portion of liquid is used to cool fluid remaining in the conduit before it enters the flush inlet, wherein the vaporizing heat exchanger includes: a heat exchanger; a manifold fluidly connected to the conduit configured to divert the cooling portion of liquid from the conduit; a cooling spur conduit fluidly connected to the manifold, an orifice vaporizer disposed in the cooling spur that converts the cooling portion of the liquid into a gaseous state as exemplified by Bush, predictably resulting in an alternative arrangement that is still expected to facilitate heat transfer to cool fluid in the conduit.
Adams and Bush do not expressly teach a control valve disposed such that it controls flow through the manifold into the cooling spur conduit, the control valve is opened or closed based on a temperature in the system as claimed. However, such a control valve would have been obvious in view of Xing and Bond.
Figure 3 of Xing teaches a pump system with a control valve (3 or 4) disposed such that it controls flow through a manifold into the cooling spur conduit (through 7-3) control valve (3 or 4) is opened or closed based on a temperature in the system. The valve (3 or 4) provides control to the system. A temperature sensor (7-4) is used when temperature of the flushing fluid in the conduit (7) is required to be controlled [0038, 0041]. Bond provides more detail regarding why one of ordinary skill would desire control of the temperature. Col. 2, Lines 12-33 of Bond teach that high temperatures causes destruction of the seal elements. Additionally, high operating temperatures may lead to vaporization of the fluid between mating surfaces of the seals, resulting in increased friction and heat generation. Thus together, Xing and Bond exemplify why the temperature of the system should be monitored and controlled with valves being used for control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Adams-Bush with a control valve disposed such that it controls flow through the manifold into the cooling spur conduit, wherein the control valve is opened or closed based on a temperature in the system as suggested by Xing and Bond, to provide the benefit of controlling temperature of the fluid to prevent seal destruction and vaporization of fluid between the seals.
Regarding Claim 3, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the system as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification by Bush in Claim 1 results wherein the conduit (234) and the cooling spur conduit (242) are thermal coupled to the heat exchanger (240) such that heat from the conduit (234, leads to 244 where the heat transfer occurs) is transferred to the cooling spur conduit (242), as exemplified by the heat exchanger in Figure 5 of Bush [0020].
Regarding Claim 5, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the system as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification by Xing-Bond in Claim 1 results wherein the control valve is disposed between the manifold and the orifice vaporizer. Figure 5 of Bush shows the orifice vaporizer (250) and the manifold (between 234 and 250) (Bush, [0020]). The control valve (3 or 4) of Xing provides control of flow, and thus would be positioned in the line where flow control is desired (Xing, [0038]). See also Fujioka cited as pertinent art.
Regarding Claim 6, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the system as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification by Xing in Claim 1 results in a temperature sensor (7-4) that measures a temperature of a fluid in the system, as exemplified in Figure 3 of Xing [0041].
Regarding Claim 7, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the system as set forth in Claim 6.
The modification by Xing-Bond in Claim 1 results wherein the control valve is opened when the sensor measures a temperature that is above a threshold. Figures 3 of Xing shows a temperature sensor (7-4) used the measure temperature if control is desired [0041]. Control of the system in the illustration is done by valves (3, 4) [0038]. Col. 2, Lines 12-33 cited in Bond discuss the detriments of excess heat, thus there is motivation to have the temperature controlled to not be above a threshold.
Regarding Claim 8, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the system as set forth in Claim 7.
The modification by Xing-Bond in Claim 1 results wherein the sensor measures the temperature of the fluid in the conduit, as exemplified by sensor (7-4) in Figures 3 of Xing being near (10) [0038, 0041].
Regarding Claim 9, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the system as set forth in Claim 7.
Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond do not expressly teach wherein the sensor measures the temperature of a fluid in the cooling chamber as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice includes a rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). In this instance, the sensor (7-4) of Xing is provided in case control of temperature of the flushing fluid is desired [0041]. Col. 2, Lines 12-33 cited in Bond discuss the detriments excess heat of flushing fluid cause to seals, which reside in the cooling chamber. In other words, the teachings suggest the control of temperature of flushing fluid because the fluid in the cooling chamber where the seals reside should be under a threshold. Thus, a shifting of the sensor to measure temperature of a fluid in the cooling chamber is an obvious matter of design choice that does not modify the operation of the prior art, since the monitoring of temperature is for maintaining the temperature of fluid in the chamber below a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Adams-Bush-Xing-Bond such that the sensor measures the temperature of a fluid in the cooling chamber as a matter of design choice, since the temperature of the fluid in the chamber is the aspect that is desired to be controlled according to the teachings of Xing-Bond.
Regarding Claim 10, Figures 1-2 of Adams teach a method of controlling the cooling of a mechanical seal assembly (17) used in a pump assembly (6), wherein the mechanical seal assembly (17) is coupled to and surrounds a rotating shaft (14) of the pump (6), wherein the mechanical seal assembly (17) includes: first and second rings (19 and 18) configured so that first ring (19) rotates (note 19 is attached to 23 which is fixed with the shaft) with the shaft (14) and relative to the second ring (18) and a gland plate (unlabeled plate to the right of 16, in which 29 extends through) coupled to the pump (6) such that it defines a cooling chamber (31) between a housing (7, 16) of the pump (6) and the first and second rings (19 and 18), the gland plate including a flush inlet (29); the method comprising: coupling a pump outlet (12) to the flush inlet (29) to provide a path (27) for liquid that exits the pump (6) at the pump outlet (12) to be introduced into the chamber (31) via the flush inlet (29); and coupling a heat exchanger (28) along the path (27) between the pump outlet (12) and the flush inlet (29) to cool fluid remaining in the path (27) before it enters the flush inlet (29) (Col. 5, Line 20 – Col. 6, Line 5).
Adams does not expressly teach coupling a vaporizing heat exchanger along the path between the pump outlet and the flush inlet such that a portion of the liquid that exits the pump is diverted from the path and the portion of liquid is used to cool fluid remaining in the path; wherein a path is defined by a conduit and wherein the vaporizing heat exchanger includes: a heat exchanger; a manifold fluidly connected to the conduit configured to divert the cooling portion of liquid from the conduit; and a cooling spur conduit fluidly connected to the manifold; and an orifice vaporizer disposed in the cooling spur that converts the cooling portion of the liquid into a gaseous state as claimed. However, a vaporizing heat exchanger would have been obvious in view of Bush.
Figure 5 of Bush illustrates a known heat exchanger (240) used in conjunction with a pump (202) in a method of cooling. The method involves coupling a vaporizing heat exchanger (240) along a path (234) such that a cooling portion of the liquid that exits the pump (202) is diverted (through 250) from the path (234) and the cooling portion of liquid is used to cool fluid remaining in the path (234); wherein a path is defined by a conduit (234) and wherein the vaporizing heat exchanger includes: a heat exchanger (240); a manifold (between 250 and 234) fluidly connected to the conduit (234) configured to divert the cooling portion of liquid from the conduit (234); and a cooling spur conduit (250 to 242) fluidly connected to the manifold; and an orifice vaporizer (250) disposed in the cooling spur (250 to 242) that converts the cooling portion of the liquid into a gaseous state [0020]. (250) is described as an expansion valve, which is known to operate by vaporizing liquid fluid through expansion, that is formed in the portion interpreted as the cooling spur. Thus, the claimed vaporizing heat exchanger is a type that is known in the art of heat exchangers. One of ordinary skill in the art would simply substitute between known heat exchangers, predictably resulting in heat exchanger that still facilitates the transfer of heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Adams by simply substituting the heat exchanger with that of Bush, resulting coupling a vaporizing heat exchanger along the path between the pump outlet and the flush inlet such that a portion of the liquid that exits the pump is diverted from the path and the portion of liquid is used to cool fluid remaining in the path; wherein a path is defined by a conduit and wherein the vaporizing heat exchanger includes: a heat exchanger; a manifold fluidly connected to the conduit configured to divert the cooling portion of liquid from the conduit; and a cooling spur conduit fluidly connected to the manifold; and an orifice vaporizer disposed in the cooling spur that converts the cooling portion of the liquid into a gaseous state as exemplified by Bush, predictably resulting in an alternative arrangement that is still expected to facilitate heat transfer to cool fluid in the conduit.
Adams and Bush do not expressly teach controlling a control valve to control flow through into the cooling spur conduit, wherein the control valve is opened or closed based on a temperature in the system as claimed. However, such a control valve would have been obvious in view of Xing and Bond.
Figure 3 of Xing teaches a pump system with a control valve (3 or 4). The system includes controlling the control valve (3 or 4) to control flow into the cooling spur conduit (7-3), wherein the control valve (3 or 4) is opened or closed based on a temperature in the system. The valve (3 or 4) provides control to the system. A temperature sensor (7-4) is used when temperature of the flushing fluid in the conduit (7) is required to be controlled [0038, 0041]. Bond provides more detail regarding why one of ordinary skill would desire control of the temperature. Col. 2, Lines 12-33 of Bond teach that high temperatures causes destruction of the seal elements. Additionally, high operating temperatures may lead to vaporization of the fluid between mating surfaces of the seals, resulting in increased friction and heat generation. Thus together, Xing and Bond exemplify why the temperature of the system should be monitored and controlled with valves being used for control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Adams-Bush with the step of controlling a control valve to control flow through into the cooling spur conduit, wherein the control valve is opened or closed based on a temperature in the system as suggested by Xing and Bond, to provide the benefit of controlling temperature of the fluid to prevent seal destruction and vaporization of fluid between the seals.
Regarding Claim 12, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the method as set forth in Claim 10.
The modification by Bush in Claim 10 results wherein coupling includes thermally coupling the conduit (234) and the cooling spur conduit (242) to the heat exchanger (240) such that heat from the conduit (234, leads to 244 where the heat transfer occurs) is transferred to the cooling spur conduit (242), as exemplified by the heat exchanger in Figure 5 of Bush [0020].
Regarding Claim 14, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the method as set forth in Claim 10.
The modification by Xing-Bond in Claim 10 results wherein the control valve is disposed between the manifold and the orifice vaporizer. Figure 5 of Bush shows the orifice vaporizer (250) and the manifold (between 234 and 250) (Bush, [0020]). The control valve (3 or 4) of Xing provides control of flow, and thus would be positioned in the line where flow control is desired (Xing, [0038]). See also Fujioka cited as pertinent art.
Regarding Claim 15, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the method as set forth in Claim 14.
The modification by Xing in Claim 10 results in connecting a temperature sensor (7-4) so that it measures a temperature of a fluid provided to the mechanical seal assembly, as exemplified in Figure 3 of Xing [0041].
Regarding Claim 16, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the method as set forth in Claim 15.
The modification by Xing-Bond in Claim 10 results wherein the control valve is opened when the sensor measures a temperature that is above a threshold. Figures 3 of Xing shows a temperature sensor (7-4) used the measure temperature if control is desired [0041]. Control of the system in the illustration is done by valves (3, 4) [0038]. Col. 2, Lines 12-33 cited in Bond discuss the detriments of excess heat, thus there is motivation to have the temperature controlled to not be above a threshold.
Regarding Claim 17, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the system as set forth in Claim 16.
The modification by Xing-Bond in Claim 10 results wherein the sensor measures the temperature of a fluid in the conduit, as exemplified by sensor (7-4) in Figures 3 of Xing being near (10) [0038, 0041].
Regarding Claim 18, Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond teach the system as set forth in Claim 16.
Adams, Bush, Xing, and Bond do not expressly teach wherein the sensor measures the temperature of a fluid in the cooling chamber as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice includes a rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). In this instance, the sensor (7-4) of Xing is provided in case control of temperature of the flushing fluid is desired [0041]. Col. 2, Lines 12-33 cited in Bond discuss the detriments excess heat of flushing fluid cause to seals, which reside in the cooling chamber. In other words, the teachings suggest the control of temperature of flushing fluid because the fluid in the cooling chamber where the seals reside should be under a threshold. Thus, a shifting of the sensor to measure temperature of a fluid in the cooling chamber is an obvious matter of design choice that does not modify the operation of the prior art, since the monitoring of temperature is for maintaining the temperature of fluid in the chamber below a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Adams-Bush-Xing-Bond such that the sensor measures the temperature of a fluid in the cooling chamber as a matter of design choice, since the temperature of the fluid in the chamber is the aspect that is desired to be controlled according to the teachings of Xing-Bond.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fujioka (US 4,549,816 A) exemplifies a control valve (48) in series with an expansion valve (42).
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745