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 Objections
Claim 16 and its dependents are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 16, line 9, the phrase “diameter” should be changed to “a diameter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,071,961 (‘961). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘961 and includes all the limitations of claim 1 and 4 of the current application; claim 4 or ‘961 reads upon claim 5 of the current application; claim 19 of ‘961 reads upon claim 19 of the current application.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 10,989,198).
Claim 1: Lin discloses a water well submersible pump (21, col. 4, lines 51-54) filter (4) comprising a perforated cap (top portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, below); a hollow cylindrical middle member (center portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, below) joined to the perforated cap at a first end (top of center portion in Figure 3) of the hollow cylindrical middle member, wherein the hollow cylindrical middle member comprises a perforated hollow cylindrical segment proximate to the first end of the hollow cylindrical middle member (see Figure 3); and a filter crown (see annotated insert Fig. 3 below) joined to a second end of the hollow cylindrical middle member, wherein the filter crown comprises a ring of fins (combination of all the fins) extending approximately parallel to an axis of the hollow cylindrical middle member (See Figure 3 and annotated insert Fig. 3, below).
Claim 2: Lin further discloses that lengths of the perforated cap, the hollow cylindrical middle member, and the filter crown are dimensioned such that a motor of a water well submersible pump inserted into the water well submersible pump filter is positioned between the perforated cap and the filter crown (Fig. 5, Examiner noting that, in the axial direction, there is a portion of the motor rotor which is positioned between the ends of the crown and the cap).
Claim 6: Lin further discloses that a respective fin of the ring of fins tapers from a proximal end of the respective fin to a distal end of the respective fin (Fig. 3, note width tapering from a full width at one end to a narrowed width at the opposite end).
Claim 7: Lin further discloses the ring of fins (combination of all the fins) is dimensioned to compress radially inwards (see Figures 4-5, the fins compress inward to engage with 69) around a cylindrical segment 21 of a water well submersible pump (21, Column 4, lines 51-54) inserted into the water well submersible pump filter 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
625
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9: Lin further discloses the hollow cylindrical middle member (see annotated insert 3A, below) further comprises a non-perforated hollow cylindrical segment (segment of 4 below the side perforations and above filter crown in annotated insert 3A, below);
PNG
media_image2.png
581
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first end of the perforated hollow cylindrical segment joins to a circular end of the perforated cap (see annotated insert 3A, above); a second end of the perforated hollow cylindrical segment joins to a first end of the non-perforated hollow cylindrical segment (see annotated insert 3A, above); and a second end of the non-perforated hollow cylindrical segment joins to the filter crown (see annotated insert 3A, above).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Kotesky (US 9,027,763).
Claim 16: Kotesky discloses a water well submersible pump (Column 1, lines 12-25) filter 10 comprising: a hollow cylindrical member 24 comprising a perforated hollow cylindrical segment 58; and a filter crown 48/44 comprising: a hollow cylindrical crown segment 48 joined to an end (top of 24 in Figure 1, portrait view) of the hollow cylindrical member 24 at a first end (bottom of 48 in Figure 1, portrait view) of the hollow cylindrical crown segment 48, a hollow conical crown segment 44 joined to a second end (top of 48 in Figure 1) of the hollow cylindrical crown segment 48 at a first end (bottom end of 44) of the hollow conical crown segment 44, wherein a diameter of the first end (bottom end of 44) of the hollow conical crown segment 44 is larger (see Figure 1) than diameter of a second end (top end of 44) of the hollow conical crown segment 44, and a ring of fins 66 joined to, and extending longitudinally from (see Figure 1), the second end (top of 44 in Figure 1) of the hollow conical crown segment 44.
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 3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 10,989,198) in view of Zug (US 11,841,031).
Claim 3: Lin discloses the previous limitations but is not explicit about the cap comprising a dome-shape which tapers to an apex. However, Zug teaches a compressor cap which comprises a dome-shape which tapers to an apex (Fig. 5, note 570). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use a dome shape as taught by Zug into the apparatus of Lin to reduce material costs as the dome shape would require less material than the existing rectangular shape of Lin.
Claim 19: Lin discloses a water well submersible pump filter comprising a dome-shaped perforated cap (top portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, above, Examiner noting curved edges of end of the cap), and a second end of the dome-shaped perforated cap comprises a circular end (Fig. 3); and a hollow cylindrical member (center portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, above) joined to the second end of the dome-shaped perforated cap at an end of the hollow cylindrical member (Fig. 3), wherein the hollow cylindrical member comprises a perforated hollow cylindrical segment (Fig. 3). Lin is not explicit about the cap comprising a dome-shape which tapers to an apex. However, Zug teaches a compressor cap which comprises a dome-shape which tapers to an apex (Fig. 5, note 570). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use a dome shape as taught by Zug into the apparatus of Lin to reduce material costs as the dome shape would require less material than the existing rectangular shape of Lin.
Claim 20: Lin and Zug teach the previous limitations. Lin further discloses a filter crown (see annotated insert Fig. 3 above) joined to a second end of the hollow cylindrical member (Fig. 3), wherein the filter crown comprises a ring of fins (combination of all the fins) extending approximately parallel to an axis of the hollow cylindrical member (See Figure 3 and annotated insert Fig. 3, above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 10,989,198).
Claim 8: Lin discloses most of the limitations of the claim, including a diameter of the hollow cylindrical middle member (center portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, above) is dimensioned to surround a water well submersible pump (21, Column 4, lines 51-54) centrally inserted into the water well submersible pump filter 4 with a radial clearance (see Figure 5). Lin is silent on a radial clearance of between 3 millimeters (mm) and 13 mm. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used a radial clearance of between 3 millimeters (mm) and 13 mm because it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claim was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not preform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 US 830,225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 10,989,198) in view of Nurse, Jr. (US 5,795,472).
Claim 11: Lin discloses most of the limitations of the claim, including a perforated hollow cylindrical segment (see annotated insert 3A, above), Lin is silent on a plurality of perforated sub-sections joined together via lug connections; and each perforated sub-section spans the perforated hollow cylindrical segment lengthwise. Nurse disclosing a filter with removable sidewalls (title), specifically teach a plurality of perforated sub-sections 14c (see Figure 4) joined together (see Fique 2) via lug connections 26; and each perforated sub-section 14c spans a perforated hollow cylindrical segment 12 lengthwise (see Figure 4, Column 4, lines 38-55). Nurse teaches the plurality of perforated sub-sections joined together via lug connections advantageously facilitated cleaning of the filter (Column 6, lines 14-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used a plurality of perforated sub-sections joined together via lug connections as taught by Nurse, in the pump disclosed by Lin, to have advantageously facilitated cleaning the filter. This simple combination is only replacing the perforated hollow cylindrical segment disclosed by Lin, with the perforated hollow cylindrical segment 12 having the plurality of perforated sub-sections joined together via lug connections of Nurse. Such an simple modification is considered well within an entry level of one of ordinary skill in the art of pump fabrication because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 10,989,198), in view of Hokby US 10,280,924, as an evidentiary reference.
Claim 12: With respect to Claim 12, as it depends from Claim 1, although Lin disclose most of the limitations of the claim, including holes of the perforated cap (see annotated insert Fig. 3, above) and the perforated hollow cylindrical segment (see annotated insert Fig. 3, above); Lin is silent on the holes are between 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm in diameter. However, as evidenced by Hokby the diameters of the holes in a screen are a result effective variable that determines the size of particles that can pass (Column 4, lines 28-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used a hole diameter between 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 13: With respect to Claim 13, as it depends from Claim 1, although Lin discloses most of the limitations of the claim, including holes of the perforated cap (see annotated insert Fig. 3, above) and the perforated hollow cylindrical segment (see annotated insert Fig. 3, above); Lin is silent on the holes are spaced between 3 mm and 4mm apart along a diagonal between respective holes. However, as evidenced by Hokby the hole spacing (“total area”, Column 4, line 25) in a screen are a result effective variable that determines the volume of water that can pass (Column 4, lines 25-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used a spacing between holes along a diagonal between 3 mm and 4 mm, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 10,989,198) in view of Kotesky (US 9,027,763).
Claims 10: Lin discloses most of the limitations of the claim, including lengths of the perforated hollow cylindrical segment (see annotated insert 3A, above) and the non-perforated hollow cylindrical segment (see annotated insert 3A, above) are dimensioned (as seen in Figure 3) and a motor 1 of a water well submersible pump (21, Column 4, lines 51-54) inserted into the water well submersible pump filter 4, Lin is silent on the perforated hollow cylindrical segment surrounds a motor of a water well submersible pump inserted into the water well submersible pump filter. Kotesky disclosing a pump and filter assembly 10, specifically teach a perforated hollow cylindrical segment 58 surrounds a motor 20 of a water well submersible pump 10 inserted into the water well submersible pump filter 44/58/28. Kotesky teaches the flow of water along the motor advantageously prolong the durability of the motor (Column 4, lines 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have dimensioned the perforations to surround the motor as taught by Kotesky, in the pump disclosed by Lin, to have advantageously prolong the durability of the motor. This simple modification is only altering the dimensions of Lin’s elements 2 and 4; e.g. elongating element 4 and shorting element 2. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 14: Lin discloses most of the limitations of the claims, including a perforated cap (top portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, above), the hollow cylindrical middle member (center portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, above), and the filter crown (see annotated insert Fig. 3, above), Lin is silent on the perforated cap, the hollow cylindrical middle member, and the filter crown comprise a food-safe synthetic polymer plastic. Kotesky disclosing a pump and filter assembly 10, specifically teach a cap 26, a hollow cylindrical middle member 58, and the filter crown 46 comprise a food-safe synthetic polymer plastic (PVC, Column 3, lines 42-55, see Applicant’s Claim 14). It was old and well known in the art that PVC advantageously increased the safety of operation (see Callaway, US 5,038,853, Column 2, lines 10-12, for that which is old and well known in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used a synthetic polymer plastic e.g. PVC as taught by Kotesky, in the pump disclosed by Lin, to have advantageously increased the safety of operation. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used a synthetic polymer plastic e.g. PVC, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 10,989,198) in view of Kotesky (US 9,027,763) and in further view of Cline et al. (US 8,011,032).
Claim 15: With respect to Claim 15, as it depends from Claim 14, although the combination of prior art teaches most of the limitations of the claim, including Lin’s disclosure of a perforated cap (top portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, above), the hollow cylindrical middle member (center portion of 4 in Figure 3, portrait view, see annotated insert Fig. 3, above), and the filter crown (see annotated insert Fig. 3, above); in combination with Kotesky teaching of using synthetic polymer plastic (PVC, Column 3, lines 42-55) material; both Lin and Kotesky are silent on the cap, the hollow cylindrical middle member, and the filter crown are joined together via PVC glue. Cline et al. disclosing a water system 150 (see Figure 4) having a submersible pump 90 (Column 5, lines 43), specifically teach a perforated cap 72/163, a hollow cylindrical middle member 160A, and the filter crown 166 are joined together via PVC glue (“adhesive”, Column 5, lines 16-20, art recognized equivalent of glue). Cline et al. teach using the glue advantageously connected the elements together (Column 5, lines 18-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used glue as taught by Cline et al., in the pump disclosed by Lin, to have advantageously connected the elements to together. With respect to the limitations directed at the type of glue, namely “PVC Glue”, the combination of prior art teach using PVC plastic; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used “PVC glue” because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotesky (US 9,027,763) in further view of Niedermeyer (US 4,461,614).
Claim 17: With respect to Claim 17, as it depends from Claim 16, although Kotesky discloses most of the limitations of the claim including a cap 28 joined to a second end (bottom of 24 in Figure 1, portrait view) of the hollow cylindrical member 24, Kotesky is silent on a perforated cap. Niedermeyer disclosing a submersible pump 10, specifically teach a perforated (“screen”, Column 5, line 60) cap 64. Niedermeyer teaches the perforations in the cap advantageously permitted water to freely enter while blocking debris (Column 3, lines 58-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used the perforated cap taught by Niedermeyer, in the pump disclosed by Kotesky, to have advantageously permitted water to freely enter while blocking debris.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotesky (US 9,027,763) in further view of Bevington US 5,700,138.
Claim 18: With respect to Claim 18, as it depends from Claim 16, although Kotesky discloses most of the limitations of the claim, including a hollow conical crown segment 48 and a water well submersible pump 14 inserted (see Figure 1) into the water well submersible pump filter 10; Kotesky is silent on a notch extending from the second end of the hollow conical crown segment towards the first end of the hollow conical crown segment; and the notch is dimensioned to accommodate a wiring trunk. Bevington disclosing a submersible pump (see Figure 1), specifically teach a notch (opening surrounding 31 in Figure 1, hereafter 31) extending from a second end (side of 31 adjacent centerline in Figure 1) of the hollow conical (see right side of Figure 3) crown segment 15 towards the first end (side of 31 adjacent 11 in Figure 1) of the hollow conical crown segment 15; and the notch 31 is dimensioned to accommodate a wiring trunk 18. Bevington teaches the notch advantageously provided electrical power to the motor windings (Column 3, lines 31-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to have used the notch taught by Bevington, in the pump disclosed by Kotesky, to have advantageously provided electric power to the motor windings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably teach in combination that the filter crown further comprises a hollow cylindrical crown segment joined to the second end of the hollow cylindrical middle member at a first end of the hollow cylindrical crown segment; and a hollow conical crown segment, wherein: a first end of the hollow conical crown segment joins to a second end of the hollow cylindrical crown segment; a second end of the hollow conical crown segment joins to proximal ends of fins of the ring of fins; and the first end of the hollow conical crown segment has a larger diameter than the second end of the hollow conical crown segment.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746