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 § 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 1-11 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 “a first pump assembly only comprising a first sump portion extending downwardly through a top opening”, which is unclear. Is this recitation stating that the first pump assembly only has a first sump portion, or, only the first sump portion of the first sump assembly extends down through the top opening? Note that the limitation “comprising” allows the first pump assembly to include other structures not explicitly mentioned in the 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) 1-4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell (US 3768730 A). Campbell discloses a system (fig. 1 and fig. 4) comprising;
Re claim 1, a reservoir (1) comprising a top (top of 1) and a bottom (bottom of 1), a first pump assembly (6) only comprising a first sump portion (6) extending downwardly through a top opening at least partially into the reservoir and having a first sump end (bottom end of 6) for submerging below a surface of a first fluid (fluid F inside of 1 and outside of 14) in the reservoir, the pump assembly configured for extracting the first fluid from the reservoir from the first sump end without injecting any fluid into the reservoir (6 is described to only suction the fluid from the reservoir); and a first skirt (14) extending around the first sump portion downwardly from the top to define a skirt volume (space inside of 14) within the reservoir, the first skirt having a skirt lower portion (portion of 14 submerged in F) for submerging below the surface of the first fluid in the reservoir, the skirt lower portion spaced away from the bottom (fig. 1) of the reservoir to permit a flow of the first fluid to the first sump end and having a skirt upper portion (portion of 14 above F) forming a seal with the top (top portion of 14 in contact with 1) to limit a flow of a second fluid (fluid inside of 14) disposed above the first fluid from entering the skirt volume.
Re claim 2, wherein the skirt comprises an extension (portion of 14 extending below 6) extending away from the skirt lower portion towards the bottom (fig. 1 shows the extension extending towards the bottom).
Re claim 3, wherein the extension is spaced away from the bottom (fig. 1).
Re claim 4, wherein the skirt upper portion comprises a lip (fig. 1 shows 14 having the flange at the top) sized larger than the top opening.
Re claim 7, wherein the surface of the first fluid comprises a minimum operating first fluid level of the system (level shown in fig. 1).
Re claim 8, wherein the skirt lower portion is spaced away from the bottom of the reservoir (fig. 1) so that it is disposed above a suction loss level of the system (fluid level below the bottom end of 14 is construed as a suction loss level).
Re claim 9, further comprising a skirt top cover (fig. 1 shows a top plate above the flange of 14 that could be placed at the top of the opening after the pump assembly is removed) disposable over the top opening when the first pump assembly is removed.
Re claim 10, further comprising a pressure equalizing vent (15) disposed in the first skirt above the surface of the first fluid to allow fluidic communication between the second fluid and skirt volume.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enokida (US 2010/0162988 A1). Enokida discloses a system (figs. 22-24) comprising;
Re claim 1, a reservoir (4) comprising a top (top plane of 4) and a bottom (bottom surface of 4), a first pump assembly (5) only comprising a first sump portion (5) extending downwardly through a top opening at least partially into the reservoir (fig. 22) and having a first sump end (bottom end of 5) for submerging below a surface of a first fluid (fluid inside of P) in the reservoir, the pump assembly configured for extracting the first fluid from the reservoir from the first sump end without injecting any fluid into the reservoir (par [0163] describes a suction port at the bottom of 5, which extracts fluid); and a first skirt (70) extending around the first sump portion downwardly from the top to define a skirt volume (P) within the reservoir, the first skirt having a skirt lower portion (fig. 23: portion of 70 below M1-4 and above 70a) for submerging below the surface of the first fluid in the reservoir, the skirt lower portion spaced away from the bottom (fig. 22) of the reservoir to permit a flow of the first fluid to the first sump end and having a skirt upper portion (top half portion of 70) forming a seal with the top (fig. 22: upper portion of 70 reaches the top of the reservoir) to limit a flow of a second fluid (fluid outside of P) disposed above the first fluid from entering the skirt volume.
Re claim 2, wherein the skirt comprises an extension (fig. 22: 71) extending away from the skirt lower portion towards the bottom.
Re claim 3, wherein the extension is spaced away from the bottom (fig. 22).
Re claim 8, wherein the skirt lower portion is spaced away from the bottom of the reservoir (fig. 24) so that it is disposed above a suction loss level of the system (fluid level below the bottom end of 70a is construed as a suction loss level).
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 3768730 A). Campbell discloses the system (as cited above). Campbell does not disclose:
Re claim 5, further comprising a second pump assembly comprising a second sump portion extending downwardly through the top at least partially into the reservoir away from the first skirt, the second sump portion having a second sump end for submerging below the surface of the first fluid in the reservoir.
Re claim 6, further comprising a second skirt extending around the second sump portion downwardly from the top.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ another pump assembly along with a skirt to have a backup when the first pump assembly is down, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 3768730 A) in view of Roetker (US 5,535,772). Campbell discloses the system (as cited above). Campbell does not disclose:
Re claim 11, further comprising a valve disposed in a pump top cover to provide selective fluidic communication between the skirt volume and an external atmosphere.
However, Roetker teaches a tank assembly (fig. 9):
Re claim 11, further comprising a valve (82) disposed in a pump top cover (62) to provide selective fluidic communication between the skirt volume and an external atmosphere (fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a valve, as taught by Roetker, to reduce unwanted pressure variance within the tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art(s) does not disclose the newly added features of claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejection above in view of Campbell for details as to how this art read on the amended claim; this rejection construes the first pump assembly only as element 6 of Campbell. Further an alternate rejection in view of Enokida is also provided; this art shows only one element 5 of Enokida is extending into the skirt volume P.
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 MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 pm.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654