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 .
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) 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP 2016008591, English translation appended) in view of Russick et al. (herein Russick) (US 2018/0262131).Regarding Claim 1:in Figures 1-2, Eguchi discloses a pump system (10) comprising: a pump (12) including a motor (14) and an impeller (16) for pumping a liquid (see abstract), the pump (12) also including a pump housing (18, 40, 48, henceforth referred to as PH) and a containment shell (36) defining a liquid pump chamber (17, 56), the pump housing (PH) having an inlet and an outlet (inlet above impeller and outlet to the left of the impeller as shown in Figure 1) with the liquid pump chamber (17, 56) disposed therebetween and defining a liquid flow path through the pump housing (see paragraph [0028] of the translation), the impeller (16) disposed at least partially within the liquid pump chamber (disposed within liquid chamber portion 17 as seen in Figure 1), wherein the pump also includes a bearing (48) that allows for rotation of the impeller (16) relative to the pump housing (the shaft 20 supporting the rotor 22 with impeller 16 is supported by the bearing 48, see paragraph [0027]), wherein the impeller is configured to rotate within the liquid pump chamber to move the liquid from the inlet through the liquid pump chamber to the outlet under normal operation (as evident from Figure 1 and paragraph [0028]), and wherein the bearing (48) is positioned to be exposed to and cooled by the liquid during normal operation of the pump (as stated in paragraphs [0033]-[0036]); a liquid detection sensor (60) disposed in or on the pump housing (disposed in or on housing portion 40) for detecting the presence of liquid within the liquid flow path of the pump housing (see paragraph [0033]), wherein the liquid detection sensor is positioned at a location that corresponds to the bearing within the pump to determine whether the bearing is immersed in the liquid (as mentioned clearly in paragraphs [0033]-[0036], the liquid detection sensor 60 is in the vicinity of the bearing 48 to detect whether the bearing is surrounded by air or a liquid in order to ensure that the bearing does not seize in air).Eguchi fails to disclose a controller that interfaces with the liquid detection sensor and prevents power from being provided to the motor of the pump when the liquid detection sensor indicates insufficient liquid within the liquid flow path of the pump housing.However, in Figures 1-6, Russick discloses a pump system (10) comprising: a pump (43) including a pump housing (34) having an inlet (32, see paragraph [0066]) and an outlet (24, see paragraph [0065]); a liquid detection sensor (water level sensor 14 and/or sensor unit 46) mounted to the pump (as seen in Figure 1, the sensor 14 is mounted to the pump 12 or alternately as mentioned in paragraph [0068] the sensor 14, controller 20 which includes sensor 46 and the pump may be housed in a common housing such that they are mounted to each other via the housing) for detecting the presence of liquid within the pump (water level sensor 14 detects water as mentioned in paragraph [0063] and this would include water in the pump 12 which is submerged in the detected water as seen in Figure 1. Sensor unit 46 also detects whether the pump 12 is pumping water or air based on current draw as mentioned in paragraph [0076]); and a controller (20) that interfaces with the liquid detection sensor (interfaces with both 14 and 46 as seen in Figure 4) and prevents power (power from power supply 18) from being provided to a motor (not shown but extremely well known in the art that an electric motor drives this type of pump) of the pump when the liquid detection sensor indicates insufficient liquid within the pump housing (as evident from step 510 in Figure 5, if water is insufficient over a period of time, the bilge pump 12 is kept in an off state by the controller and only turned on when the water level is sufficient. Similarly, as mentioned in paragraph [0076], the sensor unit 46 provides current draw information to the processor 36 of the controller 20 to turn off the pump if it is running dry as in there is insufficient water).Hence, based on Russick’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a controller (of the type taught by Russick) in Eguchi’s pump system that would interface with Eguchi’s liquid detection sensor to prevent power from being provided to the motor (Eguchi’s motor would be modified to incorporate the power controls taught by Russick), since doing so would ensure that Eguchi’s pump would not be damaged by undesirably running dry or in air (as taught by both Eguchi and Russick).
Regarding Claim 3:Eguchi as modified by Russick discloses the pump system, wherein the liquid detection sensor is an electrical conductivity sensor (as mentioned in Eguchi’s paragraph [0031]).Regarding Claim 4:Eguchi as modified by Russick discloses the pump system, wherein the liquid detection sensor is an ultrasonic sensor (as mentioned in Eguchi’s paragraph [0031]).Regarding Claim 6:Eguchi as modified by Russick discloses the pump system, wherein as taught by Russick the controller (20) controls a power relay (depicted as wires from power source 18 to pump 12 and controller 20 which could also be coupled to a power relay as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1) configured for connecting the motor (would be incorporated with Eguchi’s motor) to a power source (18) and for disconnecting the motor from the power source (as described above in the rejection of claim 1 the associated power controls from Russick would be incorporated to control power to Eguchi’s motor). Regarding Claim 7:Eguchi as modified by Russick discloses the pump system, wherein Russick’s controller (20) added to Eguchi’s pump system would be powered by the power source (see Russick’s paragraph [0082]).Regarding Claim 8:Eguchi as modified by Russick discloses the pump system, wherein the controller added to Eguchi’s pump system, is electrically isolated from the power relay and the power source (as seen in Figure 1, the controller 20 has a separate ground indicating that it is electrically isolated from the power relay and the power source. This matches the definition of electrical isolation presented in the instant application).Regarding Claims 10 and 12-14:Eguchi is silent regarding whether the pump system is part of an on-board water system of a watercraft (per claim 10) or is a marine grade water pump (per claims 12-14).
However Russick discloses that the water pump system (10) is part of an on-board water system of a watercraft (as seen in Figure 1, the watercraft is a sea vessel as mentioned in paragraph [0060]). Russick also discloses that the pump is a marine grade water pump (pump 12 is mounted to the inner wall 24 of a sea vessel/boat indicating that it is marine grade, see paragraph [0069], per claims 12 and 13) and pumps sea water (as evident from paragraph [0069], per claim 14).Hence, based on Russick’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, that Eguchi’s pump system could be incorporated into an on-board water system of a watercraft for instance by replacing Russick’s existing pump, while further modifying Eguchi’s pump materials such that the pump would be marine grade (as taught by Russick) capable of pumping seawater, since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as a pump that would prevent bearing damage and ensure reliable performance. Regarding Claim 11:Eguchi discloses that the pump includes composite plastic/metal parts that are subject to heat damage if the pump is run when insufficient water is present in the pump (as evident from Eguchi’s paragraph [0004] and [0035] Eguchi’s bearing 48 would be susceptible to heat damage when run dry with insufficient water).Eguchi does not explicitly mention composite plastic/metal parts. However, it is extremely well known in the art that Eguchi’s pump components susceptible to heat damage could be manufactured from composite plastic/metal materials. For instance Russick’s pump (12) includes composite plastic/metal parts (pump housing 34 is disclosed as plastic or suitable materials that are known to include composite plastic or metal, see paragraph [0066]) that are subject to heat damage if the pump is run when insufficient water is present in the pump (it is well known in the art that the motor will overheat if the pump is run dry or spins air, wherein said overheating can cause damage to the plastic pump housing 34).Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form Eguchi’s pump parts susceptible to heat from composite plastic and/or metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.Regarding Claim 18:Eguchi as modified by Russick discloses the pump system (10), wherein Russick’s controller (20) added to Eguchi’s pump would interface directly or indirectly with the liquid detection sensor (as seen in Russick’s Figure 4 and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russick et al. (herein Russick) (US 2018/0262131) in view of Bowes et al. (herein Bowes) (US 5,779,456) in further view of Eguchi (JP 2016008591, English translation appended). Regarding Claims 1-2:In Figures 1-6, Russick discloses a pump system (10) comprising: a pump (43) including a pump housing (34) having an inlet (32, see paragraph [0066]) and an outlet (24, see paragraph [0065]); a liquid detection sensor (water level sensor 14 and/or sensor unit 46) mounted to the pump (as seen in Figure 1, the sensor 14 is mounted to the pump 12 or alternately as mentioned in paragraph [0068] the sensor 14, controller 20 which includes sensor 46 and the pump may be housed in a common housing such that they are mounted to each other via the housing) for detecting the presence of liquid within the pump (water level sensor 14 detects water as mentioned in paragraph [0063] and this would include water in the pump 12 which is submerged in the detected water as seen in Figure 1. Sensor unit 46 also detects whether the pump 12 is pumping water or air based on current draw as mentioned in paragraph [0076]); and a controller (20) that interfaces with the liquid detection sensor (interfaces with both 14 and 46 as seen in Figure 4) and prevents power (power from power supply 18) from being provided to a motor (not shown but extremely well known in the art that an electric motor drives this type of pump) of the pump when the liquid detection sensor indicates insufficient liquid within the pump housing (as evident from step 510 in Figure 5, if water is insufficient over a period of time, the bilge pump 12 is kept in an off state by the controller and only turned on when the water level is sufficient. Similarly, as mentioned in paragraph [0076], the sensor unit 46 provides current draw information to the processor 36 of the controller 20 to turn off the pump if it is running dry as in there is insufficient water. Furthermore, as mentioned in paragraph [0068] the sensor 14, controller 20 which includes sensor 46 and the pump may be housed in a common housing such that they are mounted to each other via the housing, wherein this common housing is interpreted as the pump housing and so the water level sensor would detect insufficient liquid within the pump housing).Russick is completely silent regarding all the claimed details of the pump and its internal structures. However, in Figure 1, Bowes discloses a magnetic drive pump used to pump liquids in a corrosive or pressurized environment (see column 1, lines 4-9) (per claim 2). Bowes further discloses that the pump includes a motor (not shown but attached to drive shaft 14, see column 3, lines 14-15) and an impeller (26) for pumping a liquid (seed column 1, lines 4-9), the pump also including a pump housing (10, 12) and a containment shell (11) defining a liquid pump chamber (chamber formed between 10 and 11), the pump housing having an inlet (shown at bottom of pump by a flow direction arrow pointing upwards) and an outlet (shown at the right side of the pump by a flow direction arrow pointing rightwards) with the liquid pump chamber disposed therebetween (see Figure 1) and defining a liquid flow path (liquid flow path depicted by flow directions into the inlet and out of the outlet, henceforth referred to as LFP) through the pump housing (see Figure 1), the impeller disposed at least partially within the liquid pump chamber (see Figure 1). Bowes further discloses a bearing (29) that allows for rotation of the impeller relative to a housing (10, 12) of the pump, wherein the impeller (26) is configured to rotate within the pump chamber (chamber within 10, 11) to move liquid from the pump inlet (shown at bottom of pump by a flow direction arrow pointing upwards) through the pump chamber to the pump outlet (shown at the right side of the pump by a flow direction arrow pointing rightwards) under normal operation (as evident from the flow direction arrows and mentioned in column 2, lines 22-26), and wherein the bearing (29) is positioned to be exposed to and cooled by the liquid during normal operation of the pump (as seen in Figure 1, the liquid can flow around 25 to cool at least the top portion of bearing 29) (per claim 15).Hence, based on Bowes’ disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted Russick’s pump with a magnetic drive pump of the type taught by Bowes (wherein Russick’s existing motor could be attached to this pump to drive the pump in the same manner taught by Bowes and wherein the control operation to turn on/off the pump would continue to be controlled based on Russick’s teachings), since doing so would provide a pump that could reliably pump liquid in a corrosive environment (Russick’s pump is located in sea water which is a corrosive environment) with a cooled bearing and wherein the use of a magnetic drive pump would further ensure a sealed environment for the motor (per claims 1and 2). Russick as modified by Bowes fails to disclose that the liquid detection sensor is positioned at a location that corresponds to the bearing within the pump to determine whether the bearing is immersed in the liquid.However, in Figures 1-2, Eguchi discloses a pump system (10) comprising: a pump (12) including a motor (14) and an impeller (16) for pumping a liquid (see abstract), the pump (12) also including a pump housing (18, 40, 48, henceforth referred to as PH) and a containment shell (36) defining a liquid pump chamber (17, 56), the pump housing (PH) having an inlet and an outlet (inlet above impeller and outlet to the left of the impeller as shown in Figure 1) with the liquid pump chamber (17, 56) disposed therebetween and defining a liquid flow path through the pump housing (see paragraph [0028] of the translation), the impeller (16) disposed at least partially within the liquid pump chamber (disposed within liquid chamber portion 17 as seen in Figure 1), wherein the pump also includes a bearing (48) that allows for rotation of the impeller (16) relative to the pump housing (the shaft 20 supporting the rotor 22 with impeller 16 is supported by the bearing 48, see paragraph [0027]), wherein the impeller is configured to rotate within the liquid pump chamber to move the liquid from the inlet through the liquid pump chamber to the outlet under normal operation (as evident from Figure 1 and paragraph [0028]), and wherein the bearing (48) is positioned to be exposed to and cooled by the liquid during normal operation of the pump (as stated in paragraphs [0033]-[0036]); a liquid detection sensor (60) disposed in or on the pump housing (disposed in or on housing portion 40) for detecting the presence of liquid within the liquid flow path of the pump housing (see paragraph [0033]), wherein the liquid detection sensor is positioned at a location that corresponds to the bearing within the pump to determine whether the bearing is immersed in the liquid (as mentioned clearly in paragraphs [0033]-[0036], the liquid detection sensor 60 is in the vicinity of the bearing 48 to detect whether the bearing is surrounded by air or a liquid in order to ensure that the bearing does not seize in air).Hence, based on Eguchi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a liquid detection sensor (of the type taught by Eguchi) in the vicinity of the modified pump (i.e., in the vicinity of the bearing taught by Bowes) since doing so would ensure that the bearing would receive sufficient cooling and would ensure that the bearing would not seize when exposed to air (as taught by Eguchi in paragraph [0036]). After said modification was made, Russick’s existing controller could be further modified to receive the readings from the added liquid detection sensor and so when liquid was not detected in the vicinity of the bearing, the power to the motor could be ceased (as originally taught by Russick), thereby stopping operation of the pump and preventing the bearing from running dry and seizing as taught by Eguchi.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP 2016008591, English translation appended) in view of Russick et al. (herein Russick) (US 2018/0262131) as evidenced by Razgani et al. (herein Razgani) (2020/0248662).Regarding Claim 5:Eguchi as modified by Russick does not explicitly mention that the liquid detection sensor may be a magnetic field sensor. However, it is well known in the art that magnetic field sensors can be used to detect liquid. For instance, in paragraph [0060] and [0059], Razgani discloses a magnetic field water level sensor (80) in a pump. Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidenced provided by Razgani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted Eguchi’s liquid detection sensor with an magnetic field liquid detection sensor (of the type taught by Razgani), since doing so would constitute a simple substitution that would yield predictable results such as providing a reliable sensor with known stable water detection technologies.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP 2016008591, English translation appended) in view of Russick et al. (herein Russick) (US 2018/0262131) in further view of Hammonds et al. (herein Hammonds) (US 2011/0301768).
Regarding Claim 9:Eguchi as modified by Russick discloses the pump system (10), wherein Russick’s power source could be an alternating current power source (as stated in paragraph [0005], the power source could be an AC power supply and as further mentioned in paragraph [0064], the control unit could be connected to any other available power supply). It is also noted that the controller (20) is capable of receiving power from a battery (18) which is a known DC source and so it is powered by a DC power source and is also capable of being powered by an AC power source. Russick is silent regarding an AC/DC converter provided for converting alternating current from the power source to direct current provided to the controller. However, it is extremely well known in the art that and AC power source being fed to a controller often has a AC/DC converter to convert the AC power to DC power being fed to the controller. For instance, in Figure 3 and paragraph [0027], Hammonds discloses an external AC power supply connected to a controller (50) via an AC/DC converter that converts alternating current from the external AC power source to DC power that is fed to the controller (50). Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and Hammonds disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized an AC/DC converter to convert an external AC power source to DC power fed to Russick’s controller (20) (as taught by Hammonds), since doing so is well known in the art to supply an alternate AC power source to Russick’s controller and to ensure a backup power supply in case the battery (18) runs out of power.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russick et al. (herein Russick) (US 2018/0262131) in view of Bowes et al. (herein Bowes) (US 5,779,456) in further view of Eguchi (JP 2016008591, English translation appended) and as evidenced by Lebkuchner et al. (herein Lebkuchner) (US 2012/0328461). Regarding Claim 16:Russick as modified to incorporate Bowes’ magnetic drive pump discloses that the bearing the bearing (29) is configured to allow the impeller (26) to rotate relative to a shaft (24), wherein ends of the shaft are supported by the housing (10, 11, 25) of the pump (as seen in Bowes’ Figure 1, the upper and lower ends of the shaft 24 are directly or indirectly supported by housing portions 10, 11 and 25), wherein the housing has a polymeric construction (as mentioned in column 3, lines 40-43 and column 4, lines 54-55, 25 is formed from nonmagnetic resin forming a strong and tough plastic) and wherein during normal operation of the pump the shaft (top portion of the shaft at the interface between 11 and 29 would at least be partially exposed to the pumped liquid since there is no sealing portion between 11 and 29. Also as seen in Figure 1, the bottom of the shaft appears to be exposed to a hole in the impeller that would allow pumped liquid to contact the bottom end of the shaft) and portions of the housing (both 10 and 11 are exposed to the pumped liquid as evident from Figure 1) supporting the ends of the shaft are exposed to the liquid in the pump.
Russick as modified by Bowes is silent regarding the material used to construct the shaft (24). However, the use of metal or ceramic to form a pump shaft is extremely well known in the art. For instance, Lebkuchner discloses in claim 1, a pump with a ceramic shaft. Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidence provided by Lebkuchner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed the shaft from metal or ceramic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 17:Russick as modified to incorporate Bowes’ magnetic drive pump discloses that impeller (26) is coupled to a plastic body supporting a plurality of magnets (magnets 28 encapsulated in a nonmagnetic resin which forms the plastic body of 25, see Bowes column 3, lines 40-43 and column 4, lines 54-55), wherein the bearing (29) is mounted between the plastic body (25) and the shaft (24, as seen in Bowes Figure 1), and wherein the magnets (28) magnetically couple to a magnetic drive (driving magnet assembly 13) for driving rotation of the impeller (see column 2, lines 22-33).
Claim(s) 19, 20, 23 and 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russick et al. (herein Russick) (US 2018/0262131) in view of Bowes et al. (herein Bowes) (US 5,779,456) in further view of Moskun (US 20070056630).Regarding Claims 19, 20 and 23:In Figures 1-6, Russick discloses a pump system (10) comprising: a pump (43) including a pump housing (34) having an inlet (32, see paragraph [0066]) and an outlet (24, see paragraph [0065]); a flow sensor (46) for sensing liquid flow in the pump (as mentioned in paragraph [0076], the sensor unit 46 measures data indicative of whether the pump 12 is evacuating fluid or whether it is spinning air. The detection of fluid flow evacuation correlates to detecting the existence of liquid flow since the fluid being evacuated by this pump is water as seen in Figure 1 and in the abstract), the flow sensor (46) disposed in the pump housing (as mentioned in paragraph [0068] the sensor 14, controller 20 which includes sensor 46 and the pump may be housed in a common housing such that they are mounted to each other via the housing, i.e., pump housing 34); and a controller (20) that interfaces with the flow sensor (as seen in Figure 4 and explained in paragraphs [0076] and [0102]) and terminates power to a motor (not shown but extremely well known in the art that these types of pumps are driven by an electric motor. Several sections in the specification also detail providing power to the pump 12 which indicates the presence of an electric motor) of the pump when the flow sensor generates flow data indicative of the pump running dry (after a period of low current draw which indicates the pump is running dry, i.e., spinning air, the controller turns off the pump in step 518 of Figure 5 as explained in paragraphs [0102] and [0076]).It is noted that Russick’s flow sensor (46) is capable of detecting whether the pump is running dry which would be indicative of whether or not liquid is present or flowing in the liquid flow path (see paragraph [0076]). However, Russick is silent regarding the claimed details of the pump and the associated motor (per claims 19, 20 and 23).However, in Figure 1, Bowes discloses a magnetic drive pump used to pump liquids in a corrosive or pressurized environment (see column 1, lines 4-9) (per claims 23). Bowes further discloses that the pump includes a motor (not shown but attached to drive shaft 14, see column 3, lines 14-15) and an impeller (26) for pumping a liquid (seed column 1, lines 4-9), the pump also including a pump housing (10, 12) and a containment shell (11) defining a liquid pump chamber (chamber formed between 10 and 11), the pump housing having an inlet (shown at bottom of pump by a flow direction arrow pointing upwards) and an outlet (shown at the right side of the pump by a flow direction arrow pointing rightwards) with the liquid pump chamber disposed therebetween (see Figure 1) and defining a liquid flow path (liquid flow path depicted by flow directions into the inlet and out of the outlet, henceforth referred to as LFP) through the pump housing (see Figure 1), the impeller disposed at least partially within the liquid pump chamber (see Figure 1). Bowes further discloses a bearing (29) that allows for rotation of the impeller relative to a housing (10, 12) of the pump, wherein the impeller (26) is configured to rotate within the pump chamber (chamber within 10, 11) to move liquid from the pump inlet (shown at bottom of pump by a flow direction arrow pointing upwards) through the pump chamber to the pump outlet (shown at the right side of the pump by a flow direction arrow pointing rightwards) under normal operation (as evident from the flow direction arrows and mentioned in column 2, lines 22-26), and wherein the bearing (29) is positioned to be exposed to and cooled by the liquid during normal operation of the pump (as seen in Figure 1, the liquid can flow around 25 to cool at least the top portion of bearing 29) (per claim 20).Hence, based on Bowes’ disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted Russick’s pump with a magnetic drive pump of the type taught by Bowes (wherein Russick’s existing motor could be attached to this pump to drive the pump in the same manner taught by Bowes and wherein the control operation to turn on/off the pump would continue to be controlled based on Russick’s teachings), since doing so would provide a pump that could reliably pump liquid in a corrosive environment (Russick’s pump is located in sea water which is a corrosive environment) with a cooled bearing and wherein the use of a magnetic drive pump would further ensure a sealed environment for the motor (per claims 19, 20 and 23). After said modification, Russick’s controller (20) controls a power relay (depicted as wires from power source 18 to pump 12 and controller 20 which could also be coupled to a power relay as shown in Russick) configured for connecting the motor (added as modified by Yano) to a power source (18) and for disconnecting the motor from the power source (as described above with respect to Russick’s Figure 5 and paragraph [0102]). Furthermore, Russick’s the controller (20) would control the power relay (in order to accomplish the power control of the motor as mentioned in Russick’s paragraph [0102]) and is powered by the power source (see paragraph [0082]).
Russick further discloses that the controller (20) is electrically isolated from the power relay and the power source (as seen in Figure 1, the controller 20 has a separate ground indicating that it is electrically isolated from the power relay and the power source. This matches the definition of electrical isolation presented in the instant application).
Russick as modified by Bowes is silent regarding whether the flow sensor (46) is electrically isolated from the power relay and the power source. However, in Figure 1, Moskun discloses a water flow sensor (108) that is electrically isolated via a ground (146).Hence, based on Moskun’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have grounded Russick’s flow sensor, in order to electrically protect the flow sensor and to electrically isolate it. Doing so would electrically isolate the flow sensor from Russick’s power relay and power source (similar to the grounding disclosed by Russick for the controller). Regarding Claim 28:Russick as modified by Bowes and Moskun discloses the pump system (10), wherein the water pump system (10) is part of an on-board water system of a watercraft (as seen in Figure 1, the watercraft is a sea vessel as mentioned in paragraph [0060]).Regarding Claim 29:Russick as modified by Bowes and Moskun discloses the pump system (10), wherein the pump (12) includes composite plastic/metal parts (pump housing 34 is disclosed as plastic or suitable materials that are known to include composite plastic or metal, see paragraph [0066]) that are subject to heat damage if the pump is run when insufficient water is present in the pump (it is well known in the art that the motor will overheat if the pump is run dry or spins air, wherein said overheating can cause damage to the plastic pump housing 34). It is noted that Russick’s pump properties (i.e., materials for the pump housing etc.) to operate in a seawater environment would be transferred to the substituted pump taught by Bowes.Regarding Claims 30-32:Russick as modified by Bowes and Moskun discloses the pump system (10), wherein the pump is a marine grade water pump (pump 12 is mounted to the inner wall 24 of a sea vessel/boat indicating that it is marine grade, see paragraph [0069], per claims 30 and 31) and pumps sea water (as evident from paragraph [0069], per claim 32). It is noted that Russick’s pump properties (i.e., materials for the pump housing etc.) to operate in a seawater environment would be transferred to the substituted pump taught by Bowes. Regarding Claim 33:Russick as modified by Bowes discloses the pump system (10), wherein the controller (20) interfaces directly or indirectly with the flow sensor (as seen in Figure 4 and as discussed in the rejection of claim 19).
Claim(s) 19, 23 and 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russick et al. (herein Russick) (US 2018/0262131) in view of Bowes et al. (herein Bowes) (US 5,779,456) in further view of Moskun (US 20070056630) and as evidenced by Lebkuchner et al. (herein Lebkuchner) (US 2012/0328461). Regarding Claim 21:Russick as modified to incorporate Bowes’ magnetic drive pump discloses that the bearing the bearing (29) is configured to allow the impeller (26) to rotate relative to a shaft (24), wherein ends of the shaft are supported by the housing (10, 11, 25) of the pump (as seen in Bowes’ Figure 1, the upper and lower ends of the shaft 24 are directly or indirectly supported by housing portions 10, 11 and 25), wherein the housing has a polymeric construction (as mentioned in column 3, lines 40-43 and column 4, lines 54-55, 25 is formed from nonmagnetic resin forming a strong and tough plastic) and wherein during normal operation of the pump the shaft (top portion of the shaft at the interface between 11 and 29 would at least be partially exposed to the pumped liquid since there is no sealing portion between 11 and 29. Also as seen in Figure 1, the bottom of the shaft appears to be exposed to a hole in the impeller that would allow pumped liquid to contact the bottom end of the shaft) and portions of the housing (both 10 and 11 are exposed to the pumped liquid as evident from Figure 1) supporting the ends of the shaft are exposed to the liquid in the pump.
Russick as modified by Bowes is silent regarding the material used to construct the shaft (24). However, the use of metal or ceramic to form a pump shaft is extremely well known in the art. For instance, Lebkuchner discloses in claim 1, a pump with a ceramic shaft. Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidence provided by Lebkuchner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed the shaft from metal or ceramic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 22:Russick as modified to incorporate Bowes’ magnetic drive pump discloses that impeller (26) is coupled to a plastic body supporting a plurality of magnets (magnets 28 encapsulated in a nonmagnetic resin which forms the plastic body of 25, see Bowes column 3, lines 40-43 and column 4, lines 54-55), wherein the bearing (29) is mounted between the plastic body (25) and the shaft (24, as seen in Bowes Figure 1), and wherein the magnets (28) magnetically couple to a magnetic drive (driving magnet assembly 13) for driving rotation of the impeller (see column 2, lines 22-33).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russick et al. (herein Russick) (US 2018/0262131) in view of Bowes et al. (herein Bowes) (US 5,779,456) in view of Moskun (US 20070056630) in further view of Hammonds et al. (herein Hammonds) (US 2011/0301768).
Regarding Claim 27:Russick as modified by Bowes and Moskun discloses the pump system (10), wherein Russick’s power source could be an alternating current power source (as stated in paragraph [0005], the power source could be an AC power supply and as further mentioned in paragraph [0064], the control unit could be connected to any other available power supply). It is also noted that the controller (20) is capable of receiving power from a battery (18) which is a known DC source and so it is powered by a DC power source and is also capable of being powered by an AC power source. Russick is silent regarding an AC/DC converter provided for converting alternating current from the power source to direct current provided to the controller. However, it is extremely well known in the art that and AC power source being fed to a controller often has a AC/DC converter to convert the AC power to DC power being fed to the controller. For instance, in Figure 3 and paragraph [0027], Hammonds discloses an external AC power supply connected to a controller (50) via an AC/DC converter that converts alternating current from the external AC power source to DC power that is fed to the controller (50). Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and Hammonds’ disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized an AC/DC converter to convert an external AC power source to DC power fed to Russick’s controller (20) (as taught by Hammonds), since doing so is well known in the art to supply an alternate AC power source to Russick’s controller and to ensure a backup power supply in case the battery (18) runs out of power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection being used in the current office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 206397757 – Leak detection in a water pump. KR 102239697 – Pump with water detection sensor.
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 DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights