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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of motor pump species P15 (Figure 43) directed to claims 1-2, 4-9, 15 and 17-18 in the reply filed on 2/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not established serious burden. This is not found persuasive because assertions that there is no burden on the examiner to examine multiple species are merely speculative and appear to be counsel’s own interpretation of examination. Each species has distinct structural features that require several examination steps for proper examination and given the extremely limited time constraints, an excessive number of species such as the number of species presented in the current application, represent a great burden to the examiner. Furthermore, there is no specific requirement to identify burden with respect to unity of invention requirements.
The applicant has also argued that there are no claims directed to pump units and/or impellers separately. The grouping of species presented by the examiner is necessary since there is nothing preventing the applicant from adding a new independent claim for instance directed to solely a motor pump or an impeller in the future if there was no election. Alternately, if a new pump unit claim is introduced with features directed to a different non-elected motor pump species or a non-elected impeller species, then the potential prior art rejections have to be reconsidered and/or changed accordingly. Hence, without a proper election of each category of species presented above, the examiner faces a great burden of examination since time is extremely limited. It is also noted that there are several claims directed to impeller structure as it applies to the claimed motor pump. Each additional impeller structure claim requires additional search and/or consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
NOTE: Claim 17 was elected however it depends on non-elected claim 16 and so is also considered withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the boss portion of the first impeller" in line 9. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the boss portion of the second impeller" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 mentions “a suction side region of the impeller” in line 2. It is unclear if it refers to the first impeller or the second impeller. Based on parent claim 1, this limitation will be interpreted as “a suction side region of the first impeller”, for examination purposes.
Claims 2, 8-9 and 15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected claim.
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 18 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 appended). Regarding Claim 1: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]), wherein the boss portion (16a) of the first impeller (16) has a larger size than that of the 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).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).
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 18:In Figure 1, Morita discloses a motor pump (1, 2), wherein the rotor (6) and the first bearing are arranged in a suction side region (20, 25) of the first impeller (broadly viewed, the liquid communication path 25 and the liquid chamber 20 are at the center of the pump and form the suction side region of the first impeller 16 prior to the liquid being discharged via 18b or 22b). Note: The elected species shown in Figure 43 does not show the suction side region and so it is being broadly interpreted.
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 appended) in view of Morita et al. (herein Morita) (JP 2009293399 A, English translation 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).Sengoku is silent regarding whether the boss portion (27, 28a) of the first impeller (12) has a larger size than that of the 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 boss portion (16a) of the first impeller (16) has a larger size than that of the 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 boss portion (27, 28a) to be larger than the second impeller (13) 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 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 appended) as evidenced by An Sang Bok (herein Bok) (KR 20200092276, English translation 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See appended PTO-892 for relevant prior art related to multi-stage pumps and other related structures.
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