DETAILED ACTION
Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Final Office Action is in Reply to the arguments/amendment (hereinafter “Response”) dated 11/26/2025. Claim(s) 4-5 and 7-9 are presently pending. Claim(s) 4 is/are amended. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 4-5 and 7-9 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,001) in view of Watson (U.S. Pat. No. 4,257,744), Roddis (GB 2439139 A), Schelhammer (U.S. Pat. No. 1,912,408), Hamaguchi (JP 2000120588), and Shaw (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0219021), the applicant(s) argues that these references, separately or combined, do not teach that the seal member is an o-ring, as required by the amended claims.
The Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. In the prior Non-final rejection, Roddis is relied upon to teach a seal member housed within a seal groove formed on a surface of the sleeve insertion hole opposite to a surface of the shaft sleeve. Roddis, however, does not explicitly teach that the seal member is an o-ring seal or any other specific type of seal. It is also acknowledged that the seal member of Schelhammer is not an o-ring, however, Schelhammer was not relied upon in the prior Non-final rejection to provide the seal member itself, but rather to teach the configuration claimed configuration of the shaft sleeve comprising a non-rotating groove formed on an inner circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve and extending along the shaft sleeve throughout the length of the sleeve within the sleeve insertion hole. As such, the end result of incorporating such a non-rotating groove into the configuration of Ray as modified by Roddis was that the seal member of Ray as modified by Roddis, being placed within a seal groove formed on a surface of the sleeve insertion hole opposite to a surface of the shaft sleeve, faced an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve opposite the non-rotating groove, as claimed. Ray was not, however, modified to include the seal member of Schelhammer, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art consider that the non-rotating groove configuration of Schelhammer necessitates the use of a seal member of the type taught by Schelhammer in order to perform effectively. Rather, the non-rotating groove of Schelhammer is entirely separable from the specific configuration of the adjacent seal member, and such details were discussed by the Office only in so far as they exhibited that the non-rotating groove extended far enough down the length of the shaft sleeve to be located opposite to the portion of the sleeve insertion hole into which seals are often incorporated.
Because neither reference teaches that the seal member may be an o-ring seal, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and as was necessitated by applicant(s) amendment, which introduced newly claimed subject matter, a new ground(s) of rejection is made regarding claims 4-5 and 7-9 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Watson, Roddis, Tian (CN211009256U), Schelhammer, Hamaguchi, and Shaw, wherein Tian teaches that seal members used in the context of sealing the gap between a shaft insertion hole of an impeller and a shaft sleeve may be, and often are, o-ring seals, thereby remedying the shortcoming within the teachings of Roddis and Schelhammer.
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) 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,001 A) in view of Watson (U.S. Pat. No. 4,257,744), Roddis (GB 2439139 A), Tian (CN 211009256 U), Schelhammer (U.S. Pat. No. 1,912,408), Hamaguchi (JP2000120588A), and Shaw (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0219021 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ray discloses a pump (centrifugal pump 10) comprising: an impeller (30), wherein the impeller comprises: a shaft insertion hole (see annotated Fig. 1 below) configured to receive a main shaft (40) of an electric motor (see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, ln 39-43); a fastening hole (see annotated Fig. 1 below) having a diameter smaller than a diameter of the shaft insertion hole (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and configured to receive a fastener (38) that is configured to be fastened to the main shaft (see annotated Fig. 1 below and Col. 2, ln 39-43); and a sleeve insertion hole (see annotated Fig. 1 below) having a diameter larger than the diameter of the shaft insertion hole, and configured to receive a shaft sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 below) that is configured to be attached to the main shaft (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the shaft sleeve is arranged in a straight line between a main plate of the impeller and a step portion of the main shaft (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and the fastener is configured to apply a fastening force to an entire shaft sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 below and Col. 2, ln 39-43, wherein it is clear from Fig. 1 that the entire length of the shaft sleeve is compressed between the step portion of the main shaft and the impeller when the fastener is tightened to apply a clamping force fastening the impeller to the main shaft).
Ray fails to teach a seal washer, wherein the seal washer is configured to close a gap between a head portion of the fastener and the fastening hole.
Watson exhibits an impeller assembly similar to that of Ray, comprising a centrifugal impeller (12), a main shaft (22), and a fastener (30) which fastens the impeller to the main shaft in a similar manner to that of Ray (see Fig. 2 and Col. 2, ln 43-56), wherein the fastener includes a head portion and a shaft portion (see Fig. 2), the shaft portion extending through a fastening hole (bore 26) in the impeller and into the main shaft (see Fig. 2 and Col. 2, ln 43-56). Watson teaches that the assembly may further include a seal washer (34, 36) configured to close a gap between the head portion of the fastener and the fastening hole (see Fig. 2 and Col. 2, ln 43-56). Here again, it is evident from this description and the commonly understood purpose of a seal or seal washer within the art that such a seal washer as taught by Watson may be provided between a head portion of the fastener and the fastening hole in order to close a gap between the fastener and the impeller main plate, thereby preventing fluid from entering the interior of the impeller main plate via the fastening hole, thus protecting the fastened connection between the main shaft and the impeller from wear and corrosion.
Based on the teachings and example of Watson, and upon the commonly understood purpose of a sealing washer within 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 modify the impeller assembly of Ray such that the assembly may further include a seal washer configured to close a gap between the head portion of the fastener and the fastening hole of Ray, in the same manner as taught by Watson (see Fig. 2), in order to close a gap between the fastener and the impeller main plate, thereby preventing fluid from entering the interior of the impeller main plate via the fastening hole, thus protecting the fastened connection between the main shaft and the impeller from wear and corrosion, as is the commonly understood purpose of such as seal washer within the art.
Ray also fails to teach that the pump comprises a seal member, wherein an inner surface of the sleeve insertion hole includes a seal groove, wherein the seal member is attached to the seal groove and configured to close a gap between the sleeve insertion hole and the shaft sleeve, wherein the seal member is configured to face an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve, and wherein the seal member is an o-ring.
Roddis exhibits an impeller assembly similar to that of Ray, comprising an impeller main plate (impeller 36); a main shaft (inner shaft 31) of an electric motor; and a shaft sleeve (outer shaft 32) coaxial to and surrounding the main shaft as in Ray (see Fig. 2); the impeller main plate comprising a shaft insertion hole into which the main shaft can be inserted (see Fig. 2) and a sleeve insertion hole having a diameter larger than a diameter of the shaft insertion hole, and into which the shaft sleeve can be inserted in the same manner as Ray (see Fig. 2), wherein the shaft sleeve is arranged in a straight line between the main plate of the impeller and a step portion of the main shaft (see Fig. 2). Roddis teaches that the sleeve insertion hole may comprise a seal groove (groove comprising attached seal member 36) formed on a surface of the sleeve insertion hole opposite to a surface of the shaft sleeve, the seal groove comprising a seal member (36) attached to the seal groove, configured to close a gap between the sleeve insertion hole and the shaft sleeve, and configured to face an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve (see Fig. 2-4 and Pg. 6, ln 11-13). It is evident from this description and the commonly understood purpose of a sealing member within the art that such a seal member and corresponding seal groove as taught by Roddis may be provided on a surface of the sleeve insertion hole opposite to a surface of the shaft sleeve in order to close a gap between the sleeve insertion hole and the shaft sleeve, thereby preventing fluid from entering the interior of the impeller main plate via the shaft insertion hole and sleeve insertion hole, thus protecting the fastened connection between the main shaft and the impeller from wear and corrosion.
Based on the teachings and example of Roddis, and upon the commonly understood purpose of a sealing member within 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 modify the impeller assembly of Ray such that the sleeve insertion hole comprises a seal groove formed on a surface of the sleeve insertion hole opposite to a surface of the shaft sleeve and a seal member attached to the seal groove, the seal member being configured to close a gap between the sleeve insertion hole and the shaft sleeve, and being configured to face an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve, as taught by Roddis, in order to close a gap between the sleeve insertion hole and the shaft sleeve, thereby preventing fluid from entering the interior of the impeller main plate via the shaft insertion hole and sleeve insertion hole, thus protecting the fastened connection between the main shaft and the impeller from wear and corrosion, as is the commonly understood purpose of such as seal within the art.
While Roddis does not explicitly teach that the seal member is embodied as an o-ring (Roddis giving no details regarding the specific type of seal member to be used), it is well known within the art that an o-ring seal is suitable for sealing the gap between a shaft insertion hole of an impeller and a shaft sleeve of an impeller main shaft (see Tian, Fig. 4 and English Translation, pg. 3, ln 3-13, wherein Tian exhibits an impeller similar to that of Roddis, comprising a shaft insertion hole, a shaft sleeve 4, and an o-ring seal member 3 added between the shaft sleeve and the shaft insertion hole surface to seal the gap therebetween). Thus, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to embody the seal member of Ray as modified by Roddis as being an o-ring seal.
Finally, Ray fails to teach that the shaft sleeve has a non-rotating groove that can fit a key formed on an inner surface of the shaft insertion hole, wherein the non-rotating groove is formed on an inner circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve; and wherein the seal member is configured to face an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve opposite the non-rotating groove.
Schelhammer exhibits an impeller assembly similar to that of Ray, comprising a centrifugal impeller (impeller insert (i.e. core) 7, comprising hub 12), a main shaft (4), a shaft sleeve (bushing 9), and a fastener (nut 10) which fastens the impeller to the main shaft in a similar manner to that of Ray (see Fig. 1-3 and pg. 1, ln 79-98). Schelhammer teaches that the shaft sleeve may have a non-rotating groove that can fit a key (8) which also engages the inner surface of the shaft insertion hole (34) to thereby rotationally couple the impeller, main shaft, and shaft sleeve together, such that they cannot rotate relative to each other, the non-rotating groove being formed on an inner circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve (see Fig. 1 and 3, and pg. 1, ln 79-98, wherein it is visually apparent from Fig. 3 that key 8 extends into a non-rotating groove formed on the inner circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve and also into a non-rotating groove formed on the inner circumferential surface of the shaft insertion hole located further within the impeller hub). Schelhammer further teaches that the non-rotating groove may extend along nearly the entire length of the inner circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve within the sleeve insertion hole, such that any annular seal member provided between an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve and the inner surface of the shaft insertion hole will face an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve opposite the non-rotating groove (see Fig. 1 and 3, pg. 2, ln 10-22, and pg. 2, ln 69-86, wherein it is clear from both figures and text that the seal member 29, which is attached to a seal groove formed on an inner surface of the sleeve insertion hole – i.e. the recess formed at the cup-shaped end of impeller hub 27 – and is configured to close a gap between the sleeve insertion hole and the shaft sleeve in a manner similar to that of Ray as modified by Roddis, faces an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve directly opposite the non-rotating groove accommodating key 8).
Hamaguchi teaches that the use of such key/groove coupling between the impeller, shaft sleeve, and main shaft provides more reliable rotational coupling between these components than configurations which rely solely upon surface contact (friction) between the components ([0042]), such as the configuration of Ray. Shaw, exhibiting a similar impeller-main shaft coupling (see Fig. 20-25 and [0077-0082]), further teaches that such a key (194) may be formed integrally on an inner surface (192) of the shaft insertion hole (see Fig. 25 and [0080]) as one suitable configuration among other suitable configurations (see Fig. 21-22 and 25, and [0077-0082]).
Based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump of Ray such that the shaft sleeve comprises a non-rotating groove that can fit a key, wherein the non-rotating groove is formed on an inner circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve, and wherein the non-rotating groove extends along nearly the entire length of the inner circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve within the sleeve insertion hole, such that the seal member (the o-ring seal incorporated into Ray according to the teachings of Roddis and Tian) faces an outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve opposite the non-rotating groove, in a similar manner to that exhibited in Schelhammer; and such that the key is formed on an inner surface of the shaft insertion hole, as taught by Shaw, because the use of such key/groove coupling between the impeller, shaft sleeve, and main shaft provides more reliable rotational coupling between these components than configurations which rely solely upon surface contact (friction) between the components, as described by Hamaguchi ([0042]), and since forming the key as integral to an on an inner surface of the shaft insertion hole is merely one of several known and suitable means of embodying a key-groove anti-rotation configuration, as shown by Shaw (Fig. 21-22 and 25, and [0077-0082]).
Regarding claim 5, the proposed combination exhibits that the seal washer, the impeller, and the shaft sleeve are arranged in this order, in a straight line, since a seal washer as taught by Watson is incorporated into the assembly of Ray in the above modification according to claim 4, wherein the seal washer is positioned between the fastener and the impeller of Ray, and therefore the seal washer, the impeller, and the shaft sleeve are arranged in this order, in a straight line (see Fig. 1 of Ray). The proposed combination further exhibits that under this modified configuration the fastener is configured to press a metal portion of the seal washer, the metal impeller, and the metal shaft sleeve against a step portion of the main shaft by a fastening force of the fastener (see in re claim 4 and annotated Fig. 1 of Ray, wherein because the seal washer is provided between the fastener and the impeller in the above modification, it is also pressed upon by the fastener when the fastener is tightened to apply a clamping force fastening the impeller to the main shaft and pressing the seal washer, metal impeller, and shaft sleeve against the step portion of the main shaft). It is further clear from Watson, Col. 2, ln 53-56 that the seal washer may be made of metal (steel), and while Ray does not specifically teach that the impeller and shaft sleeve may be made of metal, it is well known within the art that metal is a suitable and desirable material with which to construct such components of a pump, being strong, durable, and capable of casting, molding, forging, and machining into a desired shape. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to embody these components as metal components.
Regarding claim 7, Ray further discloses that the shaft sleeve has an impeller side end portion (axially forward portion proximate the impeller) that can be inserted into the sleeve insertion hole (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and an anti-impeller side end portion (axially rear portion proximate the step portion) that can be pressed against the step portion of the main shaft and is aligned with the impeller side end portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above), and wherein the impeller side end portion is inserted into the sleeve insertion hole (see annotated Fig. 1 above), and the anti-impeller side end portion is pressed against the step portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above), and the fastener is fastened to apply the fastening force to the entire shaft sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 below and Col. 2, ln 39-43, wherein it is clear from Fig. 1 that the entire length of the shaft sleeve is compressed between the step portion of the main shaft and the impeller when the fastener is tightened to apply a clamping force fastening the impeller to the main shaft).
Regarding claim 8, Ray further discloses that the impeller comprises a main plate (see in re claim 1) having a machined surface (axially forward surfaces of the nose cone and the curved bottom plate portions of the main plate, see annotated Fig. 1 above) that is configured to be connected to the fastening hole and configured to form a front surface of the impeller (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Ray further discloses that the fastening hole, the shaft insertion hole, and the sleeve insertion hole are arranged in this order, in a straight line (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric A Lange whose telephone number is (571)272-9202. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-noon and 1pm-5:30pm.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on (571) 270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A LANGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783