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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 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 cams” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the water-mineral mixtures” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the screw threads and cams are assembled from separate screw thread and cams” in line 2. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. It appears that this is meant to indicate that the screws and cams are of a multi-part construction and are assembled from sub-units, but the claim needs to be amended for clarity.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected because they depend from indefinite claims.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirchhoff et al. (US PGPub 2017/0058095, hereinafter Kirchhoff).
Regarding claim 1, Kirchhoff discloses a disperser pump for pumping multi-phase liquid fluids comprising a body (figure 5, barrel 21) with pressure (at item 23) and suction (feed zone 4) pipes located in different parts of the pump body wherein, within the body, there is a working chamber (within barrel 21), in which there are two shafts that rotate in the same direction, have parallel axes, and have screw threads (paragraph 0131) and are characterized in that, in the end of the working chamber, the cams (in zone 19.3) are additionally mounted on the shafts in front of the pressure pipe. The speed of the shafts is a method of operation of the device. As held in In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), “the manner or method in which such machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Nonetheless, the apparatus disclosed in Kirchhoff contains all the necessary structure to perform the functions stated in claim 1 of the present application, and thus the claim is met.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the water-mineral mixtures are considered to be material worked upon by the apparatus. It is well-settled that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. In this case, the apparatus of Kirchhoff would be fully capable of working upon the mixture recited, and thus the claims are met.
Regarding claim 4, Kirchhoff discloses the screw threads and cams are made to allow their self-cleaning (paragraph 0056).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchhoff et al. (US PGPub 2017/0058095, hereinafter Kirchhoff) in view of Rohatgi et al. (US PGPub 2013/0099424, hereinafter Rohatgi).
Regarding claim 5, Kirchhoff is silent to the threads and cams being assembled from multiple parts. Rohatgi teaches a screw and cam assembly that is assembled from multiple parts (see figures 4 and 5). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kurchhoff with the assembled parts of Rohatgi for the purpose of allowing for the replacement of worn parts of the device without requiring the replacement of the entire assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses devices having screws with additional elements thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights