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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Montilla Jimenez (US 2025/0347208) hereinafter Montilla.
With regards to claim 1, Montilla discloses a progressive cavity pump rotor comprising a scroll portion 158 (fig. 5) configured to interface with a stator 118 as is conventional in the art (paragraph [0037]), wherein at least a portion of the scroll portion that is configured to interface with the stator is hollow (paragraph [0039], and a head portion 170 configured to be releasably coupled to a coupling system that accommodates an eccentric motion between the head portion and a power input shaft (paragraph [0039]), wherein the scroll portion is releasably coupled to the head portion with a collinear joint (paragraph [0039] and fig. 5, the head portion may be coupled with mechanical means).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, see figures 2, 5 and 6 with the conical hole/recess forming the first interface.
Regarding claim 8, see figures 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 9, see cap 174 in figure 5.
Regarding claim 10, the scroll portion includes a two-lead helical shape. Further, cavity pump rotors with a two-lead helical shape are old and well-known in the art.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montilla in view of Barr (US Patent 4,558,954).
Montilla does not specifically disclose the shape of the first interface portion relative to the second interface portion wherein the first interface portion includes a hexagonal socket configured to interface with a hexagonal protrusion on the second interface portion. However, hexagonal interfaces are well-known in the art as attested by Barr where a hexagonal interface 18 is shown on a protrusion of a rotor 16 of a positive displacement pump to mate with a corresponding hexagonal socket of a head portion. 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 provided a hexagonal socket in the first interface portion configured to interface with an hexagonal protrusion on the second interface portion in the progressive cavity pump of Montilla, in light of the teachings of Barr, as an obvious matter of design choice since it would have amounted to choosing between well-known assembling arrangements with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 E.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montilla as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ide (US Patent 5,139,400).
Montilla discloses a progressive cavity pump rotor as shown above. Although Montilla does not disclose a support buttress configured to limit a surface angle of a material comprising the scroll portion measured with respect to a radial axis of the scroll portion to above a specified angle, the support buttress being located between the helical portion and the first interface, however Ide teaches a progressive cavity pump rotor comprising a buttress as claimed, see figure 2. Because the support buttress of Ide is similar to the claimed buttress, Applicant should note that it will also function as claimed. 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 provided a support buttress as claimed with the scroll of Montilla, in light of the teachings of Ide, as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montilla in view of Hashima et al. (US Patent 8,967,948).
Montilla discloses the progressive cavity pump rotor as shown above. Although Ide does not explicitly disclose the scroll portion located towards a fluid output from the head portion and the head portion located towards a fluid intake from the scroll portion, however such an arrangement of the scroll portion and the head portion is well-known in the art as attested by Hashima, see column 4, lines 59-66. 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 arranged the scroll portion and the head portion of Montilla as claimed, in light of the teachings of Hashima, as is well-known in the art.
Claim(s) 18, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montilla in view of Barr and Ide.
With regards to claim 18, Montilla discloses a progressive cavity pump rotor comprising a scroll portion 158 (fig. 5) configured to interface with a stator 118 as is conventional in the art (paragraph [0037]), wherein at least a portion of the scroll portion that is configured to interface with the stator is hollow (paragraph [0039], and a head portion 170 configured to be releasably coupled to a coupling system that accommodates an eccentric motion between the head portion and a power input shaft (paragraph [0039]), wherein the scroll portion is releasably coupled to the head portion with a collinear joint. Montilla does not disclose the scroll portion comprising a polygonal socket and the head portion comprising a polygonal protrusion configured to interface with the polygonal socket, and a support buttress that forms at least a portion of a bridge structure over the polygonal socket, the support buttress configured to limit a surface angle of a material comprising the cavity pump rotor measured with respect to a longitudinal axis of the progressive cavity pump rotor to below a specified angle. However, polygonal interfaces are well-known in the art as attested by Barr where a polygonal interface 18 is shown on a protrusion of a rotor 16 of a positive displacement pump to mate with a polygonal socket. 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 provided a hexagonal socket in the first interface portion configured to interface with an hexagonal protrusion on the second interface portion, in light of the teachings of Barr, as an obvious matter of design choice since it would have amounted to choosing between well-known assembling arrangements with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 E. Further, Ide teaches a progressive cavity pump rotor comprising a buttress as claimed, see figure 2. Because the support buttress of Ide is similar to the claimed buttress, Applicant should note that it will also function as claimed. 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 provided a support buttress as claimed with the scroll of Montilla/Barr, in light of the teachings of Ide, as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 19, se figure 3 of Montilla.
Regarding claim 21, see figure 5 of Montilla and figures 1-3, and 7 of Ide including rod 24 and figure 3 depicting the non-collinear joint.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 18, 19 and 21 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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 Monday to Thursday: 10:00 AM – 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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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
Prosecution Insights