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 § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosinger (US 3,570,819):
Regarding claim 1, Rosinger discloses a hollow shaft impeller, comprising: a hollow impeller housing having a hub (50) defining an interior volume and an impeller bore providing access to the interior volume; a magnet (53 or 64) sized to be disposable within the interior volume; an impeller cap (51 or 63) coupled to the hollow impeller housing proximate to the impeller bore; an impeller retainer (65,66,67,68,69,70) removably coupled to the magnet and sized to be disposed within the interior volume; and a plurality of impeller blades (52 and/or 55 or 56 or a portion there of) projecting from the hub. The statement in col. 7, lines 45-48 concerning removing and replace magnets would have suggested making the cap removable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, the plurality of impeller blades includes three, four, or five impeller blades (see Figs. 4 and 5).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terentiev (US 2010/0157725):
Regarding claim 1, Terentiev discloses a hollow shaft impeller, comprising: a hollow impeller housing having a hub (a portion of 1040, see Fig. 7) defining an interior volume and an impeller bore providing access to the interior volume; a magnet (G) sized to be disposable within the interior volume; an impeller cap (1050) coupled to the hollow impeller housing proximate to the impeller bore; an impeller retainer (see the four radial ribs in Fig. 7) removably coupled to the magnet and sized to be disposed within the interior volume; and a plurality of impeller blades (portions of 1040, see Fig. 7) projecting from the hub. The depiction of parts being separate in Fig. 7 would have suggested the parts being removable. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the cap removable as suggested by Fig. 7 and to replace the magnets.
Regarding claim 2, the plurality of impeller blades includes three, four, or five impeller blades (see Fig. 7).
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevenants (US 2020/0179885):
Regarding claim 1, Sevenants discloses a hollow shaft impeller, comprising: a hollow impeller housing having a hub (a portion of 102, see Fig. 3C) defining an interior volume and an impeller bore providing access to the interior volume; a magnet (150) sized to be disposable within the interior volume; an impeller cap (a portion of 103) coupled to the hollow impeller housing proximate to the impeller bore; an impeller retainer (see the cells having ribs in Fig. 3C) removably coupled to the magnet and sized to be disposed within the interior volume; and a plurality of impeller blades (110A, 110B, 110C, 110D, or portions thereof) projecting from the hub. The depiction of parts being separate in Fig. 3C would have suggested the parts being removable. See also the suggestion in [0030] to use the same cap with different hubs. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the cap removable as suggested by Fig. 3C and [0030] and to replace the magnets.
Regarding claim 2, the plurality of impeller blades includes three, four, or five impeller blades (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 3, at least one fin disposed on each impeller blade of the plurality of impeller blades (for example, in Fig. 3C see the fins which project downwardly from each blade; alternatively or additionally the outmost portion may also be consider a triangular fin).
Regarding claim 4, the at least one fin is triangular shaped (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 5, the at least one fin is disposed on each impeller blade of the plurality of impeller blades between a top edge and a bottom edge of each impeller blade of the plurality of impeller blades (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 7, a gasket (104) coupled to the impeller cap and configured to, with the impeller cap, seal the interior volume at the impeller bore.
Regarding claim 8, the gasket is an O-ring (see Fig. 3C and [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, the gasket comprises an elastomeric material (see [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, the impeller retainer comprises a circular flange having a top surface and an opposite bottom surface (see Fig. 3C)
Regarding claim 12, the impeller retainer further comprises: a boss projecting from the top surface of the circular flange (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 13, when the impeller retainer is disposed within the interior volume, the boss is configured to interact with the impeller cap (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 14, the impeller retainer further comprises: a cylinder descending from the bottom surface of the circular flange (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 15, the cylinder of the impeller retainer comprises a plurality of rails disposed about an exterior surface of the cylinder (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 16, the magnet comprises: a bore centrally disposed on the magnet; and a plurality of slots disposed around a perimeter of the bore (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 17, the cylinder and the plurality of rails are keyed to the bore and the plurality of slots of the magnet such that the bore and the plurality of slots of the magnet are configured to at least partially receive the cylinder and the plurality of rails of the impeller retainer (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 18, when the cylinder and the plurality of rails of the impeller retainer are disposed within the bore and the plurality of slots of the magnet, the magnet is coupled to the impeller retainer (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 19, the impeller cap comprises: cap beams and cap slots disposed about the impeller cap (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 20, in the bore of the impeller, the magnets and gaps therebetween constitute hub beams and hub slots disposed about the impeller bore, wherein the cap beams are configured to be disposed within the hub slots and the hub beams are configured to be disposed within the cap slots when the impeller cap is coupled to the hollow impeller housing (see Fig. 3C)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevenants (US 2020/0179885) in view of Klein (US 1,156,409). The impeller of Sevenants was discussed above. Sevenants does not disclosed a fin extending on and extending from each blade face. Klein teaches ribs (15) on and extending from the faces of each of blades (14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provide the blade with rib on and extending from the face of each as taught by Klein to improve mixing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevenants (US 2020/0179885) in view of Tsien (US 4,087,862). The impeller of Sevenants was discussed above. Sevenants does not expressly state that the gasket is made of one of the materials listed this claim. Tsien teaches making a gasket of a silicon material, a polytetrafluoroethylene material, or a rubber material (see col. 6, lines 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the gasket of a silicon material, a polytetrafluoroethylene material, or a rubber material as taught by Tsien to provide sealing properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights