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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant argues that that there is no basis in Obuchi, Tsuruta, or any other knowledge in the field for the interpretation of element 5 of Obuchi to be the reinforcement portion because “Obuchi clearly and unequivocally discloses just "a hub, or an equivalent coupling device... [that] allows to fasten the impeller to a transmission shaft that is turned by a motor means...." Obuchi, 0003. Nothing in this disclose, nor the remainder of Obuchi, supports or indicates an interpretation of member 5 as anything more or different from a coupling device.” As mentioned before, “reinforcement” is a function and element 5 of Obuchi is perfectly capable of being a reinforcement portion. Applicant has not provided any reason as to why a reinforcement portion cannot be a part of a coupling device. Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that there is no affirmative duty for Applicant to explain why a reinforcement portion cannot be part of a coupling device, as Obuchi does not disclose a reinforcement portion at all and does not disclose the need of a reinforcement portion. Instead, Obuchi merely discloses a coupling device” and that “Obuchi does not disclose a structural equivalent to the reinforcement portion of the present claims.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because as explained above, a coupling device or its parts can perfectly function as a reinforcement portion. Applicant’s allegation is a misrepresentation of the rejection. In the rejection, the examiner interprets element 5 of Obuchi (which is the hub) to be a reinforcement portion, i.e., a portion that reinforces. Obuchi discloses that instead of their element 5 (i.e., their reinforcement portion), an equivalent can be used. Applicant argues that this "equivalent" has to be a coupling device and it cannot be another reinforcement portion. This is in contradiction to the rejection. In essence, applicant is representing another rejection with another interpretation other than what was presented by the examiner and then they are arguing against that, instead of the examiner's actual rejection. In the rejection, Obuchi's element 5 is interpreted as the reinforcement portion and Obuchi allows using another equivalent to element 5. Applicant argues that Tsuruta is not in the same field of endeavor, and that a person of skill in the art would have no motivation or reason to combine the prior arts in the rejection. Here applicant is repeating their argument that was responded to in the previous office action regarding the two prior arts used in the rejection as being analogues arts. As was explained in detail, for a prior art to be considered analogues art, it has to either be in the same field of endeavor, or solve the same problem. The examiner believes that Tsuruta meets both of these criteria. Firstly, Tsuruta is in the same field of endeavor because both applicant and Tsuruta relate to the field of making flange plates through stamping and pressing. Applicant’s “impeller” is merely an intended use of the flange plate. Moreover, Tsuruta has not disclosed that their flange plate is only intended to be used in gear transmission. Arguendo, even if it had disclosed that, that would have been merely an intended use. Tsuruta teaches that “an object of the present invention is to provide a method of manufacturing a quadruple-folded boss portion which can be formed at one time and requires a small number of press working steps.” Hence, both Applicant and Tsuruta relate to the field of endeavor of manufacturing flange plates through stamping. Furthermore, both Applicant and Tsuruta solve the same problem. Applicant has stated that they are solving the problem of strengthening the flange plate around its central hole. Tsuruta is also solving the same problem by creating a “large wall thickness” around the central hole of a flange plate by making a “quadruple-folded” around the central hole, hence strengthening and reinforcing the area around the central hole by the large wall thickness of the quadruple-folded area around the central hole. Hence, both applicant and Tsuruta also solve the same problem. Furthermore, as stated in the rejection, the known technique taught by Tsuruta can be used in making the flange plate of Obuchi, and it will produce many other benefits taught by Tsuruta such as it would improve the productivity and greatly reduces the cost and the component weight, while it would make it easy to make the reinforcement portion with a predetermined uniform thickness, and it can be formed at one time and requires a small number of steps. In the rejection, Tsuruta teaches reinforcing a through opening of a plate by a reinforcement portion that extends perimetrically to the through opening of the plate, said plate and said reinforcement portion being constituted by a single piece of stamped, bent and flattened metal sheet (Fig. 1-9), and further teaches that this will improve the productivity and greatly reduces the cost and the component weight, while it would make it easy to make the reinforcement portion with a predetermined uniform thickness, and it can be formed at one time and requires a small number of steps. The rejection then states that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to apply a known technique, i.e., making a plate and its reinforcement portion by a single piece of stamped, bent and flattened metal sheet, to a known device ready for improvement, i.e., the impeller of Obuchi, to yield predictable results of reinforcing the through opening of the front plate by a reinforcement portion. Moreover, this would improve the productivity and greatly reduces the cost and the component weight, while it would make it easy to make the reinforcement portion with a predetermined uniform thickness, and it can be formed at one time and requires a small number of steps.
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obuchi et al. (US 2017/0260992), referred to hereafter as Obuchi in view of Tsuruta (JPS 5884618).
With regard to claim 1:
Obuchi discloses an impeller (1), particularly for centrifugal pumps ([0029]), comprising a front plate (3) and a back plate (2) arranged coaxially to a central axis (100, Fig. 2) of said impeller and rigidly connected to each other by means of a plurality of radial blades (4) that are angularly distributed about said central axis (Fig. 2, 3); said front plate having a central through opening (Fig. 2, 3) adapted to connect said impeller to a driving shaft (22, [0030]); said impeller comprising a reinforcement portion (5, note that a reinforcement portion is a broad limitation because most elements in an assembly reinforce other elements in some way) that extends perimetrically to said through opening, at least partially surmounting said front plate (Fig. 2, 3).
Obuchi discloses that the reinforcement portion can be any equivalent device ([0003]), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that said front plate and said reinforcement portion are constituted by a single piece of stamped, bent and flattened metal sheet.
However, Tsuruta teaches reinforcing a through opening of a plate by a reinforcement portion that extends perimetrically to the through opening of the plate and at least partially surmounting it, said plate and said reinforcement portion being constituted by a single piece of stamped, bent and flattened metal sheet (Fig. 1-9). Tsuruta teaches that this will improve the productivity and greatly reduces the cost and the component weight, while it would make it easy to make the reinforcement portion with a predetermined uniform thickness, and it can be formed at one time and requires a small number of steps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, i.e., making a plate and its reinforcement portion by a single piece of stamped, bent and flattened metal sheet, to improve similar devices in the same way, to reinforce the through opening of the front plate by a reinforcement portion. Moreover, this would improve the productivity and greatly reduces the cost and the component weight, while it would make it easy to make the reinforcement portion with a predetermined uniform thickness, and it can be formed at one time and requires a small number of steps, as taught by Tsuruta.
After the above combination, the reinforcement portion would still extend perimetrically to said through opening, and at least partially surmounting said front plate (see Fig. 1-9 of Tsuruta.)
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Obuchi and Tsuruta further discloses that the stamped, bent and flattened metal sheet comprises bending lines between said front plate and said reinforcement portion that form edges (see Tsuruta, Fig. 6, 9).
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Obuchi and Tsuruta further discloses that the reinforcement portion radially surmounts the front plate (see Fig. 2, 3 of Obuchi, and Fig. 1-9 of Tsuruta, and the rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar impellers such as US 11739642.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745