DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection in response to the arguments filed 12/23/2025. Claims 19-22, 24, 26-33, and 35-40 are currently pending with claim 19 amended and claims 37-40 new. Claims 1-18, 23, 25 and 34 have been canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments regarding the prior art Gerber, the prior art Uhlmann and the amended claim 19, it is not readily apparent how the claimed invention differs from the prior at Gerber because the arguments presented appears to amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. It appears the “arranged without gaps” would signal that the cell units of the Gerber with drainage apertures (Fig. 2, 61 and 62 for instance) are with gaps. However, Gerber teaches that the cell units (Figs. 2-3, 52 and 54 for instance) may be formed without these features (¶ [0021]) and thus arrange without gaps. Additionally, Geber teaches that the cell units (52, 54) are “directly adjacent” and “sharing walls” (between them for instance, as seen in the figures). As far as “a honeycomb structure as a cellular lattice framework of the blade arrangement” the prior Xiang teaches such a feature in centrifugal pumps, see rejection to follow.
In response to arguments to the prior art Uhlmann, examiner contends that the prior art was relied upon to teach “the walls of the cell units completely enclose the cavities,” as outlined in the last rejection, but also teaches where the cell units may form a lattice type structure (see figure 4 for instance). Similarly, like Gerber, Uhlmann teaches cell units “arranged without gaps,” and “arranged directly next to one another.” As far as having a structure “having a high strength,” it is contended that the prior Gerber teaches that the structure of the impeller is formed to have strength (see ¶ [0036]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 40 is 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.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the integrality" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 19-22, 24, 26, 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation).
In Reference to claim 19
Gerber discloses a centrifugal pump (¶ [0002]) comprises:
a blade arrangement (Fig. 3: 10 for instance), wherein
the blade arrangement has a carrier unit (12, see also figure 1) on which blades (16) are arranged,
the blade arrangement has cell units that enclose cavities (52, 54 and 92 for instance), the cell units being formed by walls (walls around 52, 54 and 92 for instance),
the carrier unit and the blades have cell units which enclose the cavities (52 in carrier 12 and 92 in blades 16 for instance, each surrounded by walls), and all walls of the cell units are formed integrally by the carrier unit and the blade (¶ [0020]: the structure formed as a monolithic structure for instance), wherein the cell units (adjacent ones of 52 or adjacent 54 for instance) are arranged without gaps between them (¶ [0021], without drainage holes for instance, and thus formed as enclosed cells) and are arranged directly next to one another (as seen in figure 3, 52’s or 54’s directly next to one another for instance) so that a blade arrangement having a high strength is formed without gaps (¶ [0036], the blade arrangement formed to have strength for instance), and cell units arranged directly next to one another share walls (as seen in figure 3, 52’s or 54’s directly next to one another for instance), and wherein the cavities may be formed having different shapes (Geber, ¶ [0027]-[0028]).
Gerber does not teach “... the cell units form a honeycomb structure of the blade arrangement ....”
Uhlmann is related to a blade arrangement (Fig. 1: 1 for instance) with cell units that enclose cavities (3 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the cell units form a lattice structure of the blade arrangement (as seen in figure 4 for instance).
Xiang is related to a blade arrangement (Fig. 1) having cell units that enclose cavities (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2 of the honeycomb structure for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the cell units form a honeycomb structure (see figures 1 and 2 and ¶ [0013]) of the blade arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the cell units form a honeycomb structure (of regular lattice structures as taught by Uhlmann and honeycomb structures as taught by Xiang) of the blade arrangement (of Gerber), so as to use a structure (lattice structures as taught by Uhlmann and honeycomb structures as taught by Xiang), known to be used in the art to form blade arrangements and that aids in dispersing stress, in helping in preventing stress concentration and minimizing the weight of a system (as taught by Xiang, ¶ [0013], ¶ [0016] of Uhlmann and Gerber ¶ [0020]), into the system of Gerber and predictably form the bade arrangement..
In Reference to claim 20
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 19, wherein cell units (Gerber: 52, 54 and 92 for instance) are arranged directly next to one another (Gerber as seen in figure 3 for instance).
In Reference to claim 21
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 20, wherein the cell units (Gerber: 52, 54 and 92 for instance) arranged directly next to one another share walls (Gerber as seen in figure 3 for instance).
In Reference to claim 22
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 21, with Gerber further teaching that the cavities may be formed having different shapes (Geber, ¶ [0027]-[0028]), wherein the cell units form a honeycomb structure (as taught by Xiang, see figures 1 and 2 and ¶ [0013]). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the cell units form a honeycomb structure, so as to use a structure, known to be used in the art to form blade arrangements and that aids in dispersing stress, in helping in preventing stress concentration and minimizing the weight of the system (Xiang, ¶ [0013] and Gerber ¶ [0020]).
In Reference to claim 24
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 21, wherein the walls of the cell units form cavities (see figure 3 of Gerber).
In Reference to claim 26
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 24, wherein all of the walls of the cell units are formed in multiple pieces and/or in a hybrid fashion by the carrier unit and blades (Gerber, the cavities 52 and 92 and formed in carrier 12 and blades 26 for instance).
In Reference to claim 28
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 27, further comprising reinforcing ribs that are arranged inside the cell units and/or between neighboring cell units (Gerber, figures 6-11 with ribs 56 for instance).
In Reference to claim 29
Geber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 28, wherein the cell units are aligned radially and/or in the circumferential direction (Gerber, see figures 2, 3 and 5 for instance).
In Reference to claim 30
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 29, wherein the walls of the cell units form the fluid contact face of the blade arrangement (Gerber, interior surfaces of 12, 14 and 16 for instance).
In Reference to claim 31
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 30, wherein the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs are produced from a metallic material (Gerber, ¶ [0021]).
In Reference to claim 32
Geber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 30, wherein the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs are produced from a material combination (Gerber ¶ [0021], the capability of using different materials in different portions of the blade arrangement 10 for instance).
In Reference to claim 33
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 32, Xiang further teaching wherein the cavities of the cell units are at least partially filled with a material (¶ [0029], the holes being filled for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the cavities of the cell units (of Geber) are at least partially filled with a material, as taught by Xiang, so as to possibly improve the heat conductivity of the blade arrangement of Gerber (Xiang, ¶ [0013]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of US 2019/0017492 to Harrington et al. (Harrington).
In Reference to claim 27
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 26, except, “... wherein the walls have a thickness of less than 3 mm ....”
Harrington is related to a blade arrangement (abstract, a turbine blade) with cell units that enclose cavities (interior honeycomb structure as seen in figures 2 and 3B for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein walls (of the honeycomb structure for instance) have a varying thickness (¶ [0038]) and so as to tailor the design need of the cell structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the walls have a tailored thickness, so as to garner optimal results for the blade arrangement per desired requirements.
In view of the prior art teachings that the selecting a thickness of walls of the cell system is a result effective variable, 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 thickness of the walls of Gerber wherein the walls have a thickness of less than 3 mm, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0001557 to Buller et al. (Buller).
In Reference to claim 35
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses a method for producing a centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement as claimed in claim 19 (such as using a metal sintering or a 3D printing process as taught by Gerber, ¶ [0020]), with an integrative manufacturing unit (system to carry out the metal sintering or 3D printing process for instance, as taught, Gerber, ¶ [0035]), the method comprising:
forming the cell units from a construction material (materials used to form the impeller, Gerber [0021]).
Geber does not explicitly teach “... configuring the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs by selective action of energy in the form of radiation, temperature and pressure, producing the walls and the reinforcing ribs by deliberate variation of the action of energy, and deliberate variating of the thickness of the walls in order to adapt to the load requirements ....”
Regarding the limitation “... configuring the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs by selective action of energy in the form of radiation, temperature and pressure, producing the walls and the reinforcing ribs by deliberate variation of the action of energy ...”: Buller is related to a 3D printing process for producing a device, as the claimed invention, and teaches configuring the device by selective action of energy in the form of radiation, temperature and pressure, producing the device by deliberate variation of the action of energy ([0317]: selective application of energy beam, maintenance of temperature and pressure for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the method for producing the centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement includes configuring the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs (of the cell structure of Gerber) by selective action of energy in the form of radiation, temperature and pressure (as taught by Buller), producing the walls and the reinforcing ribs (of Gerber) by deliberate variation of the action of energy (as taught by Buller), so as to use an art known technique (of forming a device using a 3D printing process for instance) to form the centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement of Gerber and predictably produce the centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement.
Regarding the limitation “... deliberate variating of the thickness of the walls in order to adapt to the load requirements ....”: Xiang (as noted above) is related to a blade arrangement (Fig. 1) having cell units that enclose cavities (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2 of the honeycomb structure for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches configuring walls and/or reinforcing ribs selectively (the variation of thickness of the cell structure, ¶ [0011] and [0026]) and deliberate variating of the thickness of the walls in order to adapt to the load requirements (¶ [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber with deliberate variating of the thickness (as taught by Xiang) of the walls (of Gerber) in order to adapt to the load requirements (as taught by Xiang), so as to use an art known technique, of 3D printing for instance, to predictably form the system of Gerber including the variation of thickness (Xiang, ¶ [0013]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US Patent 9,567,992 to Heide et al. (Heide).
In Reference to claim 36
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the use of a centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement as claimed in claim 19, but does not explicitly teach, “... as a microdosing pump ....”
Examiner notes that it has been held that ‘A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (such as used for microdosing) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.’ Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II).
Nonetheless, Heide is related to a centrifugal pumps (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches the centrifugal pump being a microdosing pump (abstract and claim 7: the operation of the pump used for medication dosing for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the centrifugal pump is a microdosing pump, as taught by Heide, so as to use an art known device (centrifugal pump for instance) as a microdosing pump to predictable pump a fluid (Heide: abstract and claim 7).
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0332460 to Wang et al. (Wang).
In Reference to claim 37
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 19, wherein the cell units are formed by wear and erosion resistant and corrosion-resistant walls (Geber ¶ [0036], of materials used to form the centrifugal pump for instance).
Gerber does not explicitly teach “... abrasion-resistant ....”
Wang is related to materials used to form components of a turbine (¶ [0002]), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the materials used to form the components are abrasion-resistant and corrosion-resistant (¶ [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the cell units (of Gerber) are formed by abrasion-resistant (the use of such materials as taught by Wang) and corrosion-resistant walls (as taught by Gerber), so as to use an art known technique (of using certain materials to form components of a turbine, as taught by Wang, such a centrifugal pumps) into the system of Gerber and predictably for the component of the centrifugal pump.
In Reference to claim 38
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann, Xiang and Wang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 37, wherein the blade arrangement has no openly accessible cavities (Gerber, such as not having drainage holes and formed monolithically for instance, see ¶ [0023] and [0020]).
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0332460 to Wang et al. (Wang) as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of US 2019/0017492 to Harrington et al. (Harrington).
In Reference to claim 39
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann, Xiang and Wang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 38, with reinforcing ribs are arranged inside the cell units and/or between neighboring cell units (Gerber ¶ [0023], ribs in each cell unit and walls shared between the cell units for instance).
Gerber does not teach, however, “... wherein the walls have a thickness of less than 1 mm ....”
Harrington is related to a blade arrangement (abstract, a turbine blade) with cell units that enclose cavities (interior honeycomb structure as seen in figures 2 and 3B for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein walls (of the honeycomb structure for instance) have a varying thickness (¶ [0038]) and so as to tailor the design need of the cell structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the walls have a tailored thickness, so as to garner optimal results for the blade arrangement per desired requirements.
In view of the prior art teachings that the selecting a thickness of walls of the cell system is a result effective variable, 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 thickness of the walls of Gerber wherein the walls have a thickness of less than 1 mm, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
In Reference to claim 40
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann, Xiang, Wang and Harrington, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 39, wherein the integrality is achieved by a generative manufacturing method (a product by process limitation).
The limitation “the integrality is achieved by a generative manufacturing method” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is that the integrality is made by generative manufacturing. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar product is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113
Nonetheless, the prior art Gerber teaches wherein the integrality is achieved by a generative manufacturing method (Gerber ¶ [0020], a monolithic structure formed by additive manufacturing for instance).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show materials used to from blade arrangements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745