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 interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“rotation stopping structure”; first introduced in claim 1:
the rotation stopping structure performs the function of limiting a rotation of the first gasket relative to the mounting portion. The corresponding structure, or an equivalent thereof, comprises a mounting portion 11 having a first clamping structure. The first clamping structure is a recessed surface formed by a joint between first and second segments 111, 112 and ribs 60 disposed around a circumference of the first and second segments 111, 112. The first clamping structure cooperates with a second clamping structure, which is formed by a protruding structure 521 formed on the extension portions 51, 52 extending from the first gasket. (See paragraphs [0031-34], FIGS. 2-3.)
"first clamping structure "; first introduced in claim 3:
the first clamping structure cooperates with the second clamping structure to limit displacement of the gasket. The corresponding structure, or an equivalent thereof, comprises a recessed surface formed by a joint between first and second segments 111, 112 and ribs 60 disposed around a circumference of the first and second segments 111, 112. (See paragraphs [0031-34], FIGS. 2-3.)
"second clamping structure"; first introduced in claim 3:
the second clamping structure cooperates with the first clamping structure to limit displacement of the gasket. The corresponding structure, or an equivalent thereof, is formed by a protruding structure 521 formed on the extension portions 51, 52 extending from the first gasket. (See paragraphs [0031-34], FIGS. 2-3.)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a rotation stopping structure disposed between the first gasket and the mounting portion. However, based on the recitation of claim 2 and the specification, the rotation stopping structure actually comprises a protruding structure disposed on an extension portion of the first gasket that cooperates with the mounting portion, which is a recess formed by first and second segments delimited by ribs disposed circumferentially around the mounting portion. It is not clear how the rotation stopping structure can be disposed between the first gasket and the mounting portion, since a portion of the rotation stopping structure comprises the mounting portion itself. For purposes of examination, the Examiner suggests amending the claim language of claim 1 to instead be, “a rotation stopping structure
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to claim 1, Zou et al. (US 2020/0072224), referred to hereafter as Zou, discloses an electronic water pump, comprising: a pump head (10), wherein a mounting portion (13) is disposed on the pump head; a pump housing (61), wherein the pump head is used for sealing the pump housing (Fig. 3); an isolation sleeve (see 71) disposed between the pump head and the pump housing (Fig. 3); an impeller assembly (30) disposed between the pump head and the isolation sleeve (Fig. 3). Washizu (5,163,719) teaches a first gasket (Fig. 2, 3). Philips also teaches a first gasket (Fig. 5). Both gaskets have jaws that can be inserted into recesses. However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, nor any motivation, to modify the prior art and have the first gaskets of Washizu or Philips disposed at an end of the mounting portion of Zou that is close to the impeller assembly, wherein the first gasket is used for isolating the mounting portion from the impeller assembly; and a rotation stopping structure (as interpreted above under the 112(f) section) disposed between the first gasket and the mounting portion, wherein the rotation stopping structure is capable of limiting a rotation of the first gasket relative to the mounting portion, because it would require improper hindsight reconstruction. Claims 2-10 depend from 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 pumps such as US 11384776 and US 20230208227.
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, 6:30am-15:30pm.
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, Woody A Lee Jr can be reached on (571) 272-1051. 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
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745