DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yano (US 2007/0177995).
Regarding Claim 1:In Figure 1, Yano discloses a pump system comprising: a pump (see Figure 1) including a motor (37) and an impeller (20) for pumping a liquid, the pump also including a pump housing (21, 22) and a containment shell (21-1, 38, 21-2) defining a liquid pump chamber (chamber formed by space between 21-2, 38 and 21-1, henceforth referred to as PC), the pump housing having an inlet (26) and an outlet (27) with the liquid pump chamber (PC) disposed therebetween (as seen in Figure 1) and defining a liquid flow path (liquid flow path depicted by flow direction arrows between 26 and 27 in Figure 1, henceforth referred to as LFP) through the pump housing (see Figure 1), the impeller (20) disposed at least partially within the liquid pump chamber (as seen in Figure 1), a liquid detection sensor (29) disposed in or on the pump housing (disposed at outlet 27) for detecting the presence of liquid within the liquid flow path of the pump housing (see paragraph [0064]); and a controller (not shown but described in paragraph [0021]) that interfaces with the liquid detection sensor (29) 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 (as mentioned in paragraph [0064], if insufficient liquid is detected at the outlet 27 of the pump, the controller will command the motor to turn off thereby ensuring that the pump does not run dry or empty). Regarding Claim 2:In Figure 1, Yano discloses the pump system, wherein the pump is a magnetic drive pump (inner magnets 34 are driven by outer magnets 33 which are in turn driven by the motor 37, see paragraph [0041]).Regarding Claim 19:In Figure 1, Yano discloses a pump system comprising: a pump (see Figure 1) including a motor (37) and an impeller (20) for pumping a liquid, the pump also including a pump housing (21, 22) and a containment shell (21-1, 38, 21-2) defining a liquid pump chamber (chamber formed by space between 21-2, 38 and 21-1, henceforth referred to as PC), the pump housing having an inlet (26) and an outlet (27) with the liquid pump chamber (PC) disposed therebetween (as seen in Figure 1) and defining a liquid flow path (liquid flow path depicted by flow direction arrows between 26 and 27 in Figure 1, henceforth referred to as LFP) through the pump housing (see Figure 1), the impeller (20) disposed at least partially within the liquid pump chamber (as seen in Figure 1), a flow sensor (29) for sensing liquid flow in the liquid flow path of the pump (see paragraph [0064]), the flow sensor (29) disposed in or on at the outlet (27) of the pump housing (as mentioned in paragraph [0064] and shown in Figure 1); and a controller (not shown) that interfaces with the flow sensor (29) and terminates power to the motor (37) of the pump when the flow sensor generates flow data indicative of the pump running dry and insufficient liquid at the outlet of the pump housing (as mentioned in paragraph [0064], if insufficient liquid flow is detected at the outlet 27 of the pump by flow sensor 29, the controller will command the motor to turn off thereby ensuring that the pump does not run dry or empty).
Regarding Claim 23:In Figure 1, Yano discloses the pump system, wherein the pump is a magnetic drive pump (inner magnets 34 are driven by outer magnets 33 which are in turn driven by the motor 37, see paragraph [0041]).
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) 1-2, 6-8, 10-14, 18-19, 23-26 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 Yano (US 2007/0177995).Regarding Claims 1, 2, 19 and 23:Regarding claim 1: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).Regarding claim 19 (common portions mentioned in claim 1 are discussed above): 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 liquid detection sensor/flow sensor (at least sensor unit 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 does not explicitly mention whether this liquid detection sensor/flow sensor (46) is capable of detecting insufficient liquid within the liquid flow path of the housing. Furthermore, Russick is silent regarding the claimed details of the pump and the associated motor (per claims 1 and 19). Russick also fails to disclose that the pump is a magnetic drive pump (per claims 2 and 23). However, in Figure 1, Yano discloses a similar pump including a motor (37) and an impeller (20) for pumping a liquid, the pump also including a pump housing (21, 22) and a containment shell (21-1, 38, 21-2) defining a liquid pump chamber (chamber formed by space between 21-2, 38 and 21-1, henceforth referred to as PC), the pump housing having an inlet (26) and an outlet (27) with the liquid pump chamber (PC) disposed therebetween (as seen in Figure 1) and defining a liquid flow path (liquid flow path depicted by flow direction arrows between 26 and 27 in Figure 1, henceforth referred to as LFP) through the pump housing (see Figure 1), the impeller (20) disposed at least partially within the liquid pump chamber (as seen in Figure 1), a liquid detection sensor (29) disposed in or on the pump housing (disposed at outlet 27) for detecting the presence of liquid within the liquid flow path of the pump housing (see paragraph [0064]); and a controller (not shown but described in paragraph [0021]) that interfaces with the liquid detection sensor (29) 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 (as mentioned in paragraph [0064], if insufficient liquid is detected at the outlet 27 of the pump, the controller will command the motor to turn off thereby ensuring that the pump does not run dry or empty) (per claims 1 and 19). Note that the liquid detection sensor (29) mentioned herein is equivalent to the flow sensor mentioned in claim 19 since this sensor would perform the same function of generating flow data indicative of the pump running dry and insufficient liquid at the outlet of the pump housing (see paragraph [0064]). Yano further discloses that this pump is a magnetic drive pump (inner magnets 34 are driven by outer magnets 33 which are in turn driven by the motor 37, see paragraph [0041]). Hence, based on Yano’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 substituted Russick’s pump with a magnetic drive pump of the type taught by Yano (wherein Russick’s existing motor could be attached to this pump to drive the pump in the same manner taught by Yano and wherein the control operation to turn on/off the pump would continue to be controlled based on Russick’s teachings in addition to receiving liquid detection/flow data from Yano’s liquid detection/flow sensor, thereby further allowing Russick’s controller to be programmed to receive this data to turn off the motor when insufficient liquid was detected at the outlet as taught by Yano), 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), ensure that the pump would not run dry or empty thereby ensuring no overheating related damage to the pump components and wherein the use of a magnetic drive pump would further ensure a sealed environment for the motor. Regarding Claim 6:Russick as modified by Yano discloses the pump system (10), wherein 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 (added as modified by Yano) to a power source (18) and for disconnecting the motor from the power source (as described above in the rejection of claim 1 with respect to Figure 5 and paragraph [0076]).
Regarding Claim 7:Russick as modified by Yano discloses the pump system (10), wherein the controller (20) is powered by the power source (see paragraph [0082]).Regarding Claim 8:Russick as modified by Yano discloses the pump system (10), wherein the controller 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 Claim 10:Russick as modified by Yano 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 11:Russick as modified by Yano 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).Regarding Claims 12-14:Russick as modified by Yano 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 12 and 13) and pumps sea water (as evident from paragraph [0069], per claim 14). Regarding Claim 18:Russick as modified by Yano discloses the pump system (10), wherein the controller (20) interfaces directly or indirectly with the liquid detection sensor (as seen in Figure 4 and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1).Regarding Claim 24:Russick as modified by Yano discloses the pump system (10), wherein 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 (added as modified by Yano) to a power source (18) and for disconnecting the motor from the power source (as described above in the rejection of claim 19 with respect to Figure 5 and paragraph [0102]).Regarding Claim 25:Russick as modified by Yano discloses the pump system (10), wherein the controller (20) is powered by the power source (see paragraph [0082]).Regarding Claim 26:Russick as modified by Yano discloses the pump system (10), wherein the controller 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 Claim 28:Russick as modified by Yano 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 Yano 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).Regarding Claims 30-32:Russick as modified by Yano 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). Regarding Claim 33:Russick as modified by Yano 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) 1, 2, 15, 19, 20 and 23 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 Yano (US 2007/0177995).Regarding Claims 1, 2, 15, 19, 20 and 23:Regarding claim 1: 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) (per claim 1).Regarding claim 19 (common portions mentioned in claim 1 are discussed above): 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]).Russick is silent regarding the claimed details of the pump and the associated motor (per claims 1 and 19). Russick is also silent regarding the internal structure of the pump (per claims 15 and 20) and whether the pump is a magnetic drive pump (per claims 2 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 2 and 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 claims 15 and 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 1, 2, 15, 19, 20 and 23). Furthermore, it is noted that Russick’s liquid detection sensor/flow sensor (at least sensor unit 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 as modified by Bowes does not explicitly mention whether this liquid detection sensor/flow sensor (46) is capable of detecting insufficient liquid within the liquid flow path of the housing (per claims 1 and 19).However, in Figure 1, Yano discloses a similar pump including a motor (37) and an impeller (20) for pumping a liquid, the pump also including a pump housing (21, 22) and a containment shell (21-1, 38, 21-2) defining a liquid pump chamber (chamber formed by space between 21-2, 38 and 21-1, henceforth referred to as PC), the pump housing having an inlet (26) and an outlet (27) with the liquid pump chamber (PC) disposed therebetween (as seen in Figure 1) and defining a liquid flow path (liquid flow path depicted by flow direction arrows between 26 and 27 in Figure 1, henceforth referred to as LFP) through the pump housing (see Figure 1), the impeller (20) disposed at least partially within the liquid pump chamber (as seen in Figure 1), a liquid detection sensor (29) disposed in or on the pump housing (disposed at outlet 27) for detecting the presence of liquid within the liquid flow path of the pump housing (see paragraph [0064]); and a controller (not shown but described in paragraph [0021]) that interfaces with the liquid detection sensor (29) 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 (as mentioned in paragraph [0064], if insufficient liquid is detected at the outlet 27 of the pump, the controller will command the motor to turn off thereby ensuring that the pump does not run dry or empty) (per claims 1 and 19). Note that the liquid detection sensor (29) mentioned herein is equivalent to the flow sensor mentioned in claim 19 since this sensor would perform the same function of generating flow data indicative of the pump running dry and insufficient liquid at the outlet of the pump housing (see paragraph [0064]). Yano further discloses that this pump is a magnetic drive pump (inner magnets 34 are driven by outer magnets 33 which are in turn driven by the motor 37, see paragraph [0041]). Hence, based on Yano’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/flow sensor in the modified pump’s outlet (as taught by Yano) (wherein the control operation to turn on/off the pump would continue to be controlled based on Russick’s teachings in addition to receiving liquid detection/flow data from Yano’s liquid detection/flow sensor, thereby further allowing Russick’s controller to be programmed to receive this data to turn off the motor when insufficient liquid was detected at the outlet as taught by Yano), since doing so would ensure that the pump would not run dry or empty thereby ensuring no overheating related damage to the pump components.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2007/0177995) and as evidenced by Pluss (US 5,651,663). Regarding Claim 3:Yano does not explicitly mention that the liquid detection sensor (14) may be an electrical conductivity sensor.However, it is well known in the art that electrical conductivity sensors can be used to detect liquid. For instance, in Figures 1-2, Pluss discloses a pump system (42) wherein the liquid detection sensor (24) is an electrical conductivity sensor (as mentioned in Pluss’ claim 1). Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidence provided by Pluss, 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 Yano’s liquid detection sensor with an electrical conductivity liquid detection sensor (of the type taught by Pluss), 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (US 2007/0177995) as evidenced by Velado et al. (herein Velado) (2014/0266793).Regarding Claim 4:Yano does not explicitly mention that the liquid detection sensor may be an ultrasonic sensor. However, it is well known in the art that ultrasonic sensors can be used to detect liquid. For instance, in paragraph [0036] and [0059], Velado discloses an ultrasonic water level sensor on a boat. Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidenced provided by Velado, 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 Yano’s liquid detection sensor with an ultrasonic liquid detection sensor (of the type taught by Velado), 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (US 2007/0177995) as evidenced by Razgani et al. (herein Razgani) (2020/0248662).Regarding Claim 5:Russick a modified by Yano does not explicitly mention that the liquid detection sensor (14) 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 Yano’s liquid detection sensor (14) 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 and 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 Yano (US 2007/0177995) in further view of Hammonds et al. (herein Hammonds) (US 2011/0301768).
Regarding Claims 9 and 27:Russick as modified by Yano discloses the pump system (10), wherein the 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, 17 and 21-22 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 Yano (US 2007/0177995) and as evidenced by Lebkuchner et al. (herein Lebkuchner) (US 2012/0328461). Regarding Claims 16 and 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 Claims 17 and 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).
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 any of the new grounds of rejection being used in the current office action.
Conclusion
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