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 .
NOTE: Claim 3 was previously withdrawn and must be indicated with the withdrawn status identifier going forward.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the suction side region (claims 1 and 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4-6 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita et al. (herein Morita) (JP 2009293399 A, English translation previously appended). Regarding Claim 1:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), comprising: a first impeller (16) having a first boss portion (16a); a rotor (6) fixed to the first impeller (via shaft 5, see Figure 1); a stator (7) arranged radially outward of the rotor (see Figure 1); a first bearing (bearing 9 immediately below impeller 16) supporting the first impeller (bearing 9 supports shaft and also the impeller 16, see paragraph [0030]) and arranged outside of a flow path (flow path in impeller 16 shown in Figure 1) of the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1); a communication shaft (5) connected to the first impeller (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0038]); and a second impeller (21) having a second boss portion (21a), and connected to the communication shaft (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0042]), and a suction casing (8, 18) arranged on a suction side of the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1, the suction casing comprises the suction port 18a of the first impeller and so is arranged on a suction side of the first impeller), wherein the first boss portion (16a) of the first impeller (16) has a larger size than that of the second boss portion (21a) of the second impeller (as seen in Figure 1 and as mentioned in paragraph [0044], the first impeller 16 is larger than the second impeller 21 and this includes the boss portion 16a being larger than the boss portion 21a), and wherein the rotor (6) and the first bearing (9) are arranged in a suction side region (region within 8a and 20a) between the suction casing (8, 18) and the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1, the rotor 6 and the bearing 9 are within the suction side region formed by 8a and 20a and this suction side region is at least partially between the bottom end of the suction casing portion 8 and the first impeller 16. It is further noted that the suction side region 8a/20a includes communication passages 25 and 26 such that liquid can flow from the first liquid chamber 20 to the second liquid chamber 24 such that these passages form the suction into the second liquid chamber 24, see paragraphs [0052]-[0053]). Note: The elected species shown in Figure 43 does not show the suction side region and so it is being broadly interpreted. Regarding Claim 2:In Figure 1, Morita discloses the motor pump (1, 2), wherein the motor pump comprises a sleeve (sleeve abutting the lower surface of upper bearing 9) forming a predetermined distance between the first impeller and the second impeller (as seen in Figure 1), and wherein the sleeve is arranged between the first impeller and the second impeller (as seen in Figure 1).Regarding Claim 4:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), comprising: a first impeller (16); a rotor (6) fixed to the first impeller (via shaft 5, see Figure 1); a stator (7) arranged radially outward of the rotor (see Figure 1); a first bearing (upper bearing 9) supporting the first impeller (bearing 9 supports shaft and also the impeller 16, see paragraph [0030]) and arranged outside of a flow path (flow path in impeller 16 shown in Figure 1) of the first impeller (see Figure 1); a communication shaft (5) connected to the first impeller (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0038]); a second impeller (21) connected to the communication shaft (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0042]); and a second bearing (lower bearing 9) arranged at a rear of the second impeller (arranged above the impeller 12 which is considered the rear of the second impeller) and supporting the communication shaft (as seen Figure 1); and a suction casing (8, 18) arranged on a suction side of the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1, the suction casing comprises the suction port 18a of the first impeller and so is arranged on a suction side of the first impeller), wherein the rotor (6) and the first bearing (9) are arranged in a suction side region (region within 8a and 20a) between the suction casing (8, 18) and the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1, the rotor 6 and the bearing 9 are within the suction side region formed by 8a and 20a and this suction side region is at least partially between the bottom end of the suction casing portion 8 and the first impeller 16. It is further noted that the suction side region 8a/20a includes communication passages 25 and 26 such that liquid can flow from the first liquid chamber 20 to the second liquid chamber 24 such that these passages form the suction into the second liquid chamber 24, see paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding Claim 5:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), wherein the motor pump comprises a discharge casing (8) arranged on the rear side of the second impeller (discharge casing portion 81b is arranged on the rear side of the second impeller 21 as seen in Figure 1), and wherein the second bearing (lower bearing 9) comprises: a rotary side bearing body (bearing body depicted as 9) arranged on the communication shaft side (bearing 9 contacts shaft 5); and a stationary side bearing body (81b) arranged on the discharge casing side (as seen in Figure 1, the stationary side bearing body 81b has a cylindrical protrusion that holds 9 in place).Regarding Claim 6:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), wherein the rotary side bearing body (9) is a rotary side cylindrical body (as seen in Figure 1 and well known in the art, these types of bearings are typically cylindrical to match outer circumference of the cylindrical shaft which is shown in Figure 2) attached to the communication shaft (attached via placement between rotor 6 and stationary side bearing body 81b), and wherein the stationary side bearing body (81b) is a stationary side cylindrical body attached to the discharge casing (cylindrical protrusion on 81b is part of the stationary discharge casing 8 and so is attached integrally to it) and surrounding the rotary side bearing body (see Figure 1).Regarding Claim 19:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), comprising: a first impeller (16) having a first boss portion (16a); a rotor (6) fixed to the first impeller (via shaft 5, see Figure 1); a stator (7) arranged radially outward of the rotor (see Figure 1); a first bearing (bearing 9 immediately below impeller 16) supporting the first impeller (bearing 9 supports shaft and also the impeller 16, see paragraph [0030]) and arranged outside of a flow path (flow path in impeller 16 shown in Figure 1) of the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1); a communication shaft (5) connected to the first impeller (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0038]); and a second impeller (21) having a second boss portion (21a), and connected to the communication shaft (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0042]), and a stator casing (8, 18) accommodating the stator (7), wherein the first boss portion (16a) of the first impeller (16) has a larger size than that of the second boss portion (21a) of the second impeller (as seen in Figure 1 and as mentioned in paragraph [0044], the first impeller 16 is larger than the second impeller 21 and this includes the boss portion 16a being larger than the boss portion 21a), and wherein the first impeller (16), the rotor (6), and the first bearing (9) are arranged radially inward of the stator casing (the first impeller is radially inwards of stator casing portion 18 while the rotor 6 and the first bearing 9 are radially inwards of stator casing portion 8).Regarding Claim 20:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), comprising: a first impeller (16) having a first boss portion (16a); a rotor (6) fixed to the first impeller (via shaft 5, see Figure 1); a stator (7) arranged radially outward of the rotor (see Figure 1); a first bearing (bearing 9 immediately below impeller 16) supporting the first impeller (bearing 9 supports shaft and also the impeller 16, see paragraph [0030]) and arranged outside of a flow path (flow path in impeller 16 shown in Figure 1) of the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1); a communication shaft (5) connected to the first impeller (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0038]); and a second impeller (21) having a second boss portion (21a), and connected to the communication shaft (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0042]), wherein the first boss portion (16a) of the first impeller (16) has a larger size than that of the second boss portion (21a) of the second impeller (as seen in Figure 1 and as mentioned in paragraph [0044], the first impeller 16 is larger than the second impeller 21 and this includes the boss portion 16a being larger than the boss portion 21a), and wherein the rotor (6) is arranged adjacent to the first bearing (as seen in Figure 1, rotor 6 is adjacent to the first bearing 9). Regarding Claim 21:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), comprising: a first impeller (16); a rotor (6) fixed to the first impeller (via shaft 5, see Figure 1); a stator (7) arranged radially outward of the rotor (see Figure 1); a first bearing (bearing 9 immediately below impeller 16) supporting the first impeller (bearing 9 supports shaft and also the impeller 16, see paragraph [0030]) and arranged outside of a flow path (flow path in impeller 16 shown in Figure 1) of the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1); a communication shaft (5) connected to the first impeller (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0038]); and a second impeller (21) connected to the communication shaft (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0042]), and a stator casing (8, 18) accommodating the stator (7), a second bearing (bearing 9 immediately above impeller 21) arranged at a rear (side above 21) of the second impeller (21) and supporting the communication shaft (see paragraph [0030], and wherein the first impeller (16), the rotor (6), and the first bearing (9) are arranged radially inward of the stator casing (the first impeller is radially inwards of stator casing portion 18 while the rotor 6 and the first bearing 9 are radially inwards of stator casing portion 8).Regarding Claim 22:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), comprising: a first impeller (16); a rotor (6) fixed to the first impeller (via shaft 5, see Figure 1); a stator (7) arranged radially outward of the rotor (see Figure 1); a first bearing (bearing 9 immediately below impeller 16) supporting the first impeller (bearing 9 supports shaft and also the impeller 16, see paragraph [0030]) and arranged outside of a flow path (flow path in impeller 16 shown in Figure 1) of the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1); a communication shaft (5) connected to the first impeller (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0038]); and a second impeller (21) connected to the communication shaft (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0042]), and a second bearing (bearing 9 immediately above impeller 21) arranged at a rear (side above 21) of the second impeller (21) and supporting the communication shaft (see paragraph [0030]), and wherein the rotor (6) is arranged adjacent to the first bearing (as seen in Figure 1, rotor 6 is adjacent to the first bearing 9).
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 Sengoku (JP 2021005973, English translation previously appended) in view of Morita et al. (herein Morita) (JP 2009293399 A, English translation previously appended).Regarding Claim 1:In Figure 1, Sengoku discloses a motor pump comprising: a first impeller (12); a rotor (16) fixed to the first impeller (via rotor holder 37); a stator (17) arranged radially outward of the rotor (see Figure 1); a first bearing (40, 42) supporting the first impeller and arranged outside of a flow path of the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1 and mentioned in paragraph [0022]); a communication shaft (11) connected to the first impeller (via 40); and a second impeller (13) connected to the communication shaft (via 41), a suction casing (14) arranged on a suction side (suction casing portion 20 comprises suction 22) of the first impeller (12), wherein the rotor (16) and the first bearing (40, 42) are arranged in a suction side region (region within 19 and 21) between the suction casing (14) and the first impeller (the rotor and the first bearing are arranged in the suction side region within 19 and 21 that is formed between the bottom of suction casing portion 21 and the first impeller 12). Sengoku is silent regarding whether the first boss portion (27, 28a) of the first impeller (12) has a larger size than that of the second boss portion (30, 31a) of the second impeller.
However, Morita discloses a substantially similar motor pump (see rejection of claim 1 above in view of Morita), wherein the first boss portion (16a) of the first impeller (16) has a larger size than that of the second boss portion (21a) of the second impeller (as seen in Figure 1 and as mentioned in paragraph [0044], the first impeller 16 is larger than the second impeller 21 and this includes the boss portion 16a being larger than the boss portion 21a). As further mentioned in Morita’s paragraph [0015], the first impeller (16) is made larger than the second impeller (21) in order to increase the differential pressure between the chambers accommodating these impellers thereby improving fluid flow between these chambers. It is also known in the art that the impellers can be made larger to increase fluid flow and pressure through said impellers.Hence, based on Morita’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 modified the size of Sengoku’s first impeller (12) and consequently the size of the first boss portion (27, 28a) to be larger than the second impeller (13) including its second boss portion while also increasing the size of the chamber (24) accommodating this first impeller as taught by Morita, since doing so would increase the differential pressure between the first chamber (24) and the second chamber (25), thereby providing increased flow from the first impeller to the second chamber and increasing the flow output of the pump.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (herein Morita) (JP 2009293399 A, English translation previously appended) in view of Yamazaki et al. (herein Yamazaki) (US 6,302,910).Regarding Claim 7:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), wherein the stationary side bearing body (81b) is integrally formed with the discharge casing (as seen in Figure 1, the cylindrical portion of 81b is integrally formed with the discharge casing 8).Morita is silent regarding whether the rotary side bearing body is integrally formed with the communication shaft.However, it is extremely well known in the art that bearings can be integrally formed with shafts. For instance, in Figure 15, Yamazaki discloses a pump (104) wherein two bearings (135 and 136) are integrally formed with a driving shaft (130). Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and Yamazaki’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 formed Morita’s rotary side bearing body (9) integrally with the communication shaft (5), since doing so would be obvious to try (based on common knowledge in the art and Yamazaki’s teachings) and would yield predictable results such as reducing the complexity of manufacturing and installation and potentially reducing costs by no longer requiring separate manufacturing for the rotary side bearing body.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengoku (JP 2021005973, English translation appended) in view of Morita et al. (herein Morita) (JP 2009293399 A, English translation previously appended) as evidenced by An Sang Bok (herein Bok) (KR 20200092276, English translation previously appended). Regarding Claim 8:Sengoku as modified by Morita discloses the motor pump, wherein the motor pump comprises a rotor holder (37) holding the rotor (as seen in Figure 1), and the rotor holder (37) is fixed to the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1, the first impeller 12 is directly fixed to the rotor holder 37).Sengoku is silent regarding whether the first impeller is a press-molded product.However it is extremely well known in the art that impellers can be press-molded. For instance, in paragraphs [0021] and [0038], Bok discloses an impeller (10) that can be press-molded.
Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidenced provided by Bok, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Sengoku’s first impeller (12) using a press-molding process since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as forming a robust impeller of sufficient strength and rigidity. Note: The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).Regarding Claim 9:Sengoku as modified by Morita discloses the motor pump, wherein the rotor holder comprises: an annular accommodating portion (depicted as AP in annotated Figure A below) accommodating the rotor; and an annular closing plate (ACP, see Figure A) closing the accommodating portion.Sengoku is silent regarding whether annular accommodating portion is press-molded. However, it is fairly well known in the art that rotor holders can be press-molded. Hence, based on common knowledge in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Sengoku’s rotor holder (37) and associated annular accommodating portion (AP) using a press-molding process since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as forming a robust impeller of sufficient strength and rigidity. Note: The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15:Sengoku as modified by Morita discloses the motor pump, wherein the first bearing comprises: a rotary side bearing body (40) attached to the rotor holder (via press-fit, see paragraph [0022]); and a stationary side bearing body (42) arranged on a suction side (upper side adjacent to suction cylinder 20b) of the rotary side bearing body (as seen in Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 4, the applicant has argued that Morita does not disclose the specific positional configuration now recited in claim 1. However, the rejections of claims 1 and 4 have been updated to explain this newly claimed spatial positional configuration as follows: rotor (6) and the first bearing (9) are arranged in a suction side region (region within 8a and 20a) between the suction casing (8, 18) and the first impeller (as seen in Figure 1, the rotor 6 and the bearing 9 are within the suction side region formed by 8a and 20a and this suction side region is at least partially between the bottom end of the suction casing portion 8 and the first impeller 16. It is further noted that the suction side region 8a/20a includes communication passages 25 and 26 such that liquid can flow from the first liquid chamber 20 to the second liquid chamber 24 such that these passages form the suction into the second liquid chamber 24, see paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
With respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 citing the teachings of Sengoku as combined with Morita, the applicant has stated that this combination fails to teach the newly claimed positional configuration. However this rejection has been updated to explain this new positional configuration as follows: wherein the rotor (16) and the first bearing (40, 42) are arranged in a suction side region (region within 19 and 21) between the suction casing (14) and the first impeller (the rotor and the first bearing are arranged in the suction side region within 19 and 21 that is formed between the bottom of suction casing portion 21 and the first impeller 12).
It is further noted that the boundaries of the suction side region are not shown in Figure 43 directed to the elected embodiment and so this phrase is considered broad and is being interpreted as any region that allows flow of fluid prior to it being discharged from the pump via the impellers.
With respect to the new claims 19-22, the applicant has argued that Morita and/or Sengoku does not teach the claimed arrangements. However, these arrangements have been explained in the rejections of these claims above. Due to these reasons, these arguments are not considered persuasive.
The applicant is requested to consider further amending claim 1 to state that the rotor is attached directly to an upper surface of the first impeller and/or that the first impeller is radially inwards of the stator coils. Doing so would overcome both Morita and Sengoku that do not show this type of arrangement and it would not be possible to modify these references to teach this arrangement in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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