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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: pump means in claims 6 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Pump means is interpreted to mean “a centrifugal pump wheel” (20) (see Figure 2) (¶0022 and ¶0055 in the PG Publication of the current application (US 2025/0012277A1)).
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “the coupling halves”, which lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner recommends changing “the coupling halves” to “the motor-side coupling half and the pump-side coupling half” for proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WU (Chinese Patent Publication CN-111350656-A, a machine translation is provided with the foreign patent publication and is utilized with the drawings from the foreign patent publication in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, WU discloses: an eccentric screw pump (see Figure 1) comprising:
a rotor (5) of a pump drive shaft (7, 13) circling about a fixed axis relative to a stator (4) in a bearing block (3, 6) (see Figure 1, where the bearing block is defined by (3)), the pump drive shaft being rotationally driven by a motor drive shaft (see Figure 1 that shows a motor drive shaft extending from the motor and connected to (18)) of a motor (19),
a power train (7), and
a screw conveyor (5), which revolves in a rotating-oscillating manner in a screw flight of the stator (4) (see Figure 1),
wherein the power train provides the screw conveyor with drive torque and the power train adjusts differences of motion sequences of the screw conveyor and of the pump drive shaft (see Figure 1, Pages 4-5, the limitation directed to “the power train provides the screw conveyor with drive torque and the power train adjusts differences of motion sequences of the screw conveyor and of the pump drive shaft” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, WU is capable of performing the claimed function since WU has a universal join (7) (see Figure 1 and Page 3),
wherein the eccentric screw pump includes an air gap (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU) between the motor drive shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU) and the pump drive shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU), wherein the motor drive shaft supports a motor-side coupling half (18) (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU) and the pump drive shaft supports a pump-side coupling half (16) (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU), which are connected to one another in a torque-transmitting manner by means of magnetic forces across the air gap (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU and Page 5), and wherein the air gap is penetrated by a seal (17), which hermetically separates the motor region from the rest of the eccentric screw pump (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU, see Page 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
789
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Marked up Figure 1 of WU enlarged. The components that are marked up are the same components as marked up in the Figure 1 of WU above.
Regarding claim 2, WU discloses: wherein the seal is embodied as a cylindrical air separating can (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU, where (17) is a cylindrical can), wherein the cylindrical air separating can has an open side that is held on the bearing block (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU) and wherein the cylindrical air separating can forms a cavity (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU that shows a cavity within (17)), which protrudes beyond the bearing block and which receives the pump-side coupling half (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, WU discloses: the motor-side coupling half and the pump-side coupling half are designed and are equipped magnetically in such a way that they revolve synchronously with one another in an interference-free operation of the eccentric screw pump (see Figure 1 and Page 5).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, WU discloses: the pump-side coupling half is cooled by a fluid pumped by the eccentric screw pump (see Figure 1, Page 5-6, that discloses there is a screen (9) that is used to keep solid particles from entering into the bearings, where the bearings are lubricated by the sewage (i.e. the liquid portion of the sewage that is able to move thru the filter (9). The fluid is shown to be contained by the seal (17). The limitation directed to “the pump-side coupling half is cooled by the fluid pumped by the eccentric screw pump” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, WU is capable of performing the claimed function, since the liquid working fluid is supplied to the pump-side coupling half as discussed above).
Regarding claim 7, WU discloses: the pump drive shaft is supported on rolling bearings (11) (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU).
Regarding claim 8, WU discloses: a continuous, tubularly closed cooling duct (3, 6, 10), which reaches from a high pressure region (high pressure region is adjacent to (1) all the way into a region of a magnetic coupling with lower pressure (the low pressure is near the outlet, see Marked up Figure 1 of WU), so that the higher pressure drives a flow of the pumped fluid from the high pressure region into the region of the magnetic coupling (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU, the claimed limitation directed to “so that the higher pressure drives a flow of the pumped fluid from the high pressure region into the region of the magnetic coupling” is considered as a functional limitation, where it should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, WU is capable of performing the claimed function since the fluid is disclosed to go from the inlet at (1) to the outlet, as well as, provide water cooling to the bearings (11) with no hinderance to cooling of the pump-side coupling half (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU)), wherein the region of the magnetic coupling is arranged at the coupling halves (see Marked up Figure 1 of WU that shows that the magnetic coupling is arranged at the motor-side coupling half and the pump-side coupling half (i.e. the coupling halves)).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU in view of MARTINEK (European Patent Publication EP 0 778 658 A1).
Regarding claim 4, WU discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fails to disclose in that the eccentric screw pump comprising a thermal sensor or a slip detector, which triggers an alarm and/or takes slip-ending measures, as soon as slip occurs between the coupling halves.
Regarding claim 4, MARTINEK teaches: in that the eccentric screw pump comprises a thermal sensor or a slip detector, which triggers an alarm and/or takes slip-ending measures, as soon as slip occurs between the coupling halves (see Abstract, Column 1, line 5 – Column 2, line 34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have in that the eccentric screw pump comprises a thermal sensor or a slip detector, which triggers an alarm and/or takes slip-ending measures, as soon as slip occurs between the coupling halves in the eccentric screw pump of WU, in order to detect slippage so that the operator can be notified and fix the pump (where prolonged slippage often leads to damage to the device by heating or mechanical vibration (see Column 2, lines 18-21 of MARTINEK). Furthermore, providing notification of slippage of a magnetic coupling is well known in the art, as evidence by MARTINEK, and therefore, requires only routine skill in the art to apply the sensors and alarms to the device of WU in order to provide notification of improper operation of the eccentric screw pump.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-11, and 17-20 are 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 Examiner would like to note that claims 6 and 19 are interpreted under 112(f) claim interpretation, see claim interpretation section above.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 6, 9, and 17 have resolved the 112(b) rejections, which are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner has provided a more magnified area of the marked up Figure 1 of WU. Applicant argues that WU does not disclose a seal in marked up Figure 1 of WU. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The labeled “seal” does “hermetically separates a motor region from the rest of the eccentric screw pump”, since a seal (aka housing (17)) between the eccentric screw pump and the motor does provide sealing between the inside of the eccentric screw pump from the outside, where the motor (19) is outside of the “seal” (aka housing (17)) of the eccentric screw pump. A seal as broadly interpreted is met by the housing (17), since a cover or housing provides a seal as discussed above. Applicant further argues that the “seal” does not hermetically separate the motor region from the rest of the eccentric screw pump. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Seal (17) does hermetically seal the eccentric screw pump and does separate the inside of the eccentric screw pump from the motor region, where the motor region is inside the motor (19). The Examiner would like to note that a “seal” is broadly interpretated, where a housing that encloses a component does seal it from the outside, and therefore, may be broadly interpretated as a seal. Furthermore, the motor rotates the rotor via (16) where an air gap is between the motor shaft and the pump shaft, and therefore meets the claimed limitations.
The Examiner would like to note that they have addressed the specific arguments presented. The applicant had highlighted additional claim limitations that were not specifically argued, but WU discloses these features as discussed in the rejection above.
Applicant further argues the dependent claim 8 that WU does not disclose a continuous tubularly closed cooling duct. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out, in applicant’s own application, the continuous tubularly closed cooling duct is shown in Figure 1 with label (17), the high pressure region is located at (18) and the magnetic coupling region is located at (19) (see ¶0054 of the PG Publication of the current application). In applicant’s own application, they consider multiple connected pieces to make up the “continuous tubularly closed cooling duct” (see Figure 1 of the current application). Applicant’s arguments that (3, 6, and 10) do not equate to a continuous, tubularly closed cooling duct, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, since WU similarly shows similar sections (i.e. the screw conveyor section (3) at the high pressure side, that is connected to an intermediate discharge section (6), and then to the magnetic coupling region bounded by (17)). Fluid flows continuously, as well as, the sections are tubular in shape, thereby meeting the claim limitations in claim 8. Furthermore, if (17) is only the continuously tubularly closed cooling duct in Figure 1, than the current application does not meet their own claim limitations in claim 8, since (17) does not reach from a high pressure region (it is at the low pressure region) all the way into a region of the magnetic coupling (see where there is a mount around (5) prior to the magnetic coupling region).
The Examiner does agree that claims 9-11 and 17 are novel, and has objected to them above due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Any amended claims may have necessitated a 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 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746