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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are currently pending. Claims 4 and 7-20 have been cancelled from consideration.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6481973 (Struthers hereinafter) in view of DE 4120665 (Vile hereinafter) and further in view of JP 2018-109415 (Chao hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Struthers teaches a submersible pump system that discloses a motor case configured to accommodate an electric motor that supplies a rotational force to an output shaft (Figures 1 and 3, motor case 14 with motor 12 and output shaft 48); a pump case including a discharge pipe and configured to accommodate a first impeller provided on the output shaft (Pump housing for centrifugal pump 54 with impeller 62 in Figure 3 with inherent inlet and outlet); and an inverter case configured to accommodate an inverter device that controls the electric motor (Case of 16 for the controller with the inverter 30 per Figures 1 and 2).
Struthers is silent with respect to that the inverter case is disposed between the pump case and the motor case, and wherein the inverter case is disposed higher than the pump case and lower than the motor case.
However, Vile teaches a pump-motor assembly that discloses placing a control part of the motor-pump body between the equivalent motor and pump cases (Figure 2 with motor housing 2, pump housing 4, and control housing surrounding 3), and wherein the inverter case is disposed higher than the pump case and lower than the motor case (Evident of Figure 2 of Vile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the control/inverter casing of Struthers with the location taught by Vile since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Struthers, per Vile, is silent with respect to a mechanical seal case configured to accommodate a mechanical sealing portion that rotatably seals the output shaft and a lubricating liquid that lubricates the mechanical sealing portion, wherein the inverter case is disposed between the mechanical seal case and the motor case, and wherein the mechanical seal case and the inverter case are divided from one another in a liquid-tight manner. Struthers does disclose a seal (Figure 3, seals 50 and seal made by bearing 52 per Column 4 Lines 3-7).
However, Chao teaches a submersible pump system that discloses a mechanical sealing portion that rotatably seals the output shaft and a lubricating liquid that lubricates the mechanical sealing portion (Figure 4, mechanical seal 71 as applied to the shaft of Struthers). The resultant combination would have the inverter case disposed between the mechanical seal case and the motor case (Chao shows the chamber where 7/71 resides as being open and this would read on the inverter case of Struthers and Vile), and wherein the mechanical seal case and the inverter case are divided from one another in a liquid-tight manner (Mechanical seal case being the area around 71 and the inverter seal case being the case for 16 of Struthers are fluid-tight from one another as shown in Figure 2 of Vile showing a sealed off inverter/control area as well as Chao Figure 4 showing a fluid routing path to ensure fluid is retained by 71 and sent back towards oil chamber 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump system and sealings of Struthers with the mechanical seal of Chao to ensure that fluid leaks do not occur during operation.
Regarding claim 5, Struthers teaches a submersible pump system that discloses a motor case configured to accommodate an electric motor that supplies a rotational force to an output shaft (Figures 1 and 3, motor case 14 with motor 12 and output shaft 48); a pump case including a discharge pipe and configured to accommodate a first impeller provided on the output shaft (Pump housing for centrifugal pump 54 with impeller 62 in Figure 3 with inherent inlet and outlet); an inverter case configured to accommodate an inverter device that controls the electric motor (Case of 16 for the controller with the inverter 30 per Figures 1 and 2).
Struthers is silent with respect to a mechanical seal case configured to accommodate a mechanical sealing portion that rotatably seals the output shaft and a lubricating liquid that lubricates the mechanical sealing portion.
However, Chao teaches a submersible pump system that discloses a mechanical sealing portion that rotatably seals the output shaft and a lubricating liquid that lubricates the mechanical sealing portion (Figure 4, mechanical seal 71 as applied to the shaft of Struthers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump system and sealings of Struthers with the mechanical seal of Chao to ensure that fluid leaks do not occur during operation
Struthers is silent with respect to wherein the inverter case is disposed between the mechanical seal case and the pump case, and wherein the mechanical seal case and the inverter case are divided from one another in a liquid-tight manner.
However, Vile teaches a pump-motor assembly that discloses placing a control part of the motor-pump body between the equivalent motor and pump cases (Figure 2 with motor housing 2, pump housing 4, and control housing surrounding 3). The resultant combination would have the inverter case disposed between the mechanical seal case and the motor case (Chao shows the chamber where 7/71 resides as being open and this would read on the inverter case of Struthers and Vile), and wherein the mechanical seal case and the inverter case are divided from one another in a liquid-tight manner (Mechanical seal case being the area around 71 and the inverter seal case being the case for 16 of Struthers are fluid-tight from one another as shown in Figure 2 of Vile showing a sealed off inverter/control area as well as Chao Figure 4 showing a fluid routing path to ensure fluid is retained by 71 and sent back towards oil chamber 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the control/inverter casing of Struthers with the location taught by Vile since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6, Struther’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Struthers, Vile, and Chao would further disclose that the output shaft includes a second impeller that is disposed inside the mechanical seal case and that causes the lubricating liquid to flow toward the inverter case (Pump 81 in Figure 4 of Chao).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6481973 (Struthers) in view of DE 4120665 (Vile) in view of JP 2018-109415 (Chao) and further in view of US 2020/0006197 (Hart hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Struther’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the inverter device is disposed in contact with a lower partition wall of the inverter case.
However, Hart teaches the cooling of a semi-conductor (¶ 23) that discloses a semi-conductor device disposed in contact with a lower partition of the surrounding case (Figure 5 where the semi-conductors are in indirect contact with all portions of the surrounding contact in terms of thermodynamics for cooling). The resultant combination would be such that the inverter device is disposed in contact with a lower partition wall of the inverter case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the inverter of Struthers and Vile with the location and cooling properties of Hart to increase the cooling of the inverter of Struthers.
Regarding claim 3, Struther’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the inverter device is disposed apart from an upper partition wall and a lower partition wall of the inverter case.
However, Hart teaches the cooling of a semi-conductor (¶ 23) that discloses a semi-conductor device disposed apart from a lower partition and an upper partition wall of the surrounding case (Figure 5 shows the semi-conductors attached along the sides and away from the equivalent upper and low surfaces with ¶ 87). The resultant combination would be such that the inverter device is disposed in contact with a lower partition wall of the inverter case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the inverter of Struthers and Vile with the location and cooling properties of Hart to increase the cooling of the inverter of Struthers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination would teach away from the Struthers reference in that Struthers places the inverter atop the motor so that the liquid being pumped can carry heat away from the inverter (Column 9 Lines 52-56 of Struthers). Figure 1 of structures shows that the housing 14 has a cavity 23 filled with dielectric oil and the use of a heatsink 18 to drawn heat away form the inverter 16 and motor 12. The ability to transfer heat away from the inverter would be maintained in the combination with Vile and Chao. The oil in Chao is pathed through an intermediate location which features the mechanical seal 71. This intermediate space would feature the inverter case of Struthers as moved by Figure 2 of Vile to be underneath the motor. In some manner, the oil in Chao would have the ability to absorb heat from any heat generating component within the intermediate space/area surrounding the inverter case. The combination as set forth would still allow for heat to be transferred away from the inverter and therefore the combination would not tach away from the primary reference of Struthers. Applicant further argues that the combination would fail to disclose “wherein the mechanical seal case and the inverter case are divided from one another in a liquid-tight manner”. However, as described above, the mechanical seal case being the area immediately around and including 71 of Chao would block fluid from entering the inverter case of Struthers/Vile due to Chao Figure 4 clearly routing the oil back to the oil chamber 5 and not letting oil pass through 71. The Examiner is viewing the structure shown by Chao as being in a fluid-tight manner. Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762