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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Andreis et al. (US 20180010598) and McChesney et al. (US patent 8,333,629). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 are rejected to because of the following informalities: in claim 3, line 3, “pass through” should read --passes through--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreis et al. (US 20180010598), as evidenced by GB’279 (GB 644,279), in view of McChesney et al. (US patent 8,333,629).
Andreis et al. discloses a pump assembly for a cooling system (paragraph [0003]), the pump assembly comprising a self-priming pump 16 (pump can be any type of pump including any type of displacement pump: paragraph [0021]), a check valve 20 (paragraph [0032]) and a housing containing the self-priming pump and the check valve(housing containing valve 20 and pump 16: fig. 1) , wherein the housing comprises a valve housing portion containing the valve (upper part of the housing: fig. 1) and a pump housing portion containing the self-priming pump (lower part of the housing: fig. 1), the pump assembly being configured such that a passive flow through the pump assembly passes solely through the valve portion (paragraph [0022]), and wherein the pump assembly is a primer pump assembly (as indicated above). Andreis et al. does not explicitly disclose that the pump assembly is for a marine cooling system, or that the passive flow is caused by a main cooling pump of the marine cooling system, or that the pump assembly comprises a primer pump motor to drive the self-priming pump. However, the pump assembly of Andreis et al. could be used for any cooling system including marine cooling systems, see paragraph [0003] of Andreis et al.. Further, as it has been held, an intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Still further, McChesney et al. teaches that such cooling systems are known for cooling marine systems; McChesney et al. further teaches that it is known to pump water from the body of water in which the engine is operating using a pump driven by either the crankshaft or the driveshaft of the engine, see column 1, lines 29-49 and figures 1A and 1B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have cooled a marine system using the pump assembly of Andreis et al., in light of the teachings of McChesney et al., as is known in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a main cooling pump (any pump capable of pumping water into the parts needing cooling could be called a cooling pump) of the marine system to provide the passive flow in the pump assembly of Andreis et al., in light of the teachings of McChesney et al., as is conventional in the art. Regarding the recitation that the pump assembly comprises a primer pump motor to drive the self-priming pump, Applicant should note that it is known to use dedicated motors to drive such pumps. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, pump 16 of Andreis et al. would have to be driven by a pump motor or any equivalent drive.
Regarding claim 3, see figure 1 of Andreis et al. with pump inlet 12, pump outlet 14 and wherein the passive flow through the pump assembly enters through the pump assembly inlet, passes through the valve housing portion and exit through the pump assembly outlet, see paragraph [0022] of Andreis et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, see figure 1 of Andreis et al. and figures 1A and 1B of McChesney et al.
Regarding claims 6-9 and 11, see paragraphs [0022] and [0029] and [0030] of Andreis et al.
Regarding claim 10, see figures 1A and 1B of McChesney et al.
Regarding claim 12, see figure 1 of Andreis et al.
Regarding claim 14, the pump assembly of Andreis et al/McChesney et al. is for a marine cooling system.
Regarding claim 15, see column 1, lines 30-36. Applicant should note that the sue of centrifugal umps as the main cooling pump is an obvious matter of design choice. It is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to use any displacement pump that would efficiently supply the needed passive flow.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant should note that the claimed method is obvious in light of the pump assembly of Andreis et al./McChesney et al.
Regarding claim 20, the pump assembly of Andreis et al./McChesney meets the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreis et al./McChesney et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (JP2015067191).
Regarding claim 15, in the alternative, assuming Andreis et al./McChesney et al./ does not explicitly discloses a main cooling pump in the form of a centrifugal pump, Ito et al. teaches using a main cooling pump in the form of a centrifugal pump 38 (page 4, 2nd paragraph of the English Machine Translation- claim 2) and a main cooling pump motor 54 (page 4, 6th paragraph of the English Machine Translation) that is arranged to drive the main cooling pump, see figures 1-5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a centrifugal pump as the main cooling pump in the pump assembly of Andreis et al./McChesney et al., in light of the teachings of Ito et al., as such a pump would reduce water resistance during cruising and improve the efficiency of the marine cooling system.
Regarding claim 16, Ito et al. teaches a controller 54 that is configured to activate the pump assembly to prime the main cooling pump 38, see page 4, 6th paragraph, page 5, 4th paragraph and page 6, 3rd paragraph of the Machine English translation.
Regarding claim 17, Ito et al. teaches controller 54 connected to main cooling pump motor that is arranged to drive the main cooling pump 38, the controller being configured to activate the pump assembly in case an electric current supplied to the main pump motor is below a current threshold value and/or in case the speed of the main pump motor is above a speed threshold value, see page 6, 1t to 3rd paragraph of the English Machine Translation.
Regarding claim 18, Andreis et al./McChesney et al. discloses a sea inlet 12, a strainer/filter 18, a main cooling pump, a pump assembly and a seawater outlet 14 as shown above. Although Andreis et al./McChesney et al. does not disclose a heat exchanger, however it is known to include a heat exchanger in marine cooling systems as attested by Ito et al., see page 5, 5th and 6th paragraphs of the English machine Translation. Therefore, 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 heat exchanger in the pump assembly of Andreis et al./McChesney et al., in light of the teachings of Ito et al., in order to better control the temperature of the cooling water.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on July 31, 2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 AM to 6:00 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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746