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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Pump Unit Species PU6 (Figure 38) directed to claims 1-2, Motor Pump Species P1 (Figures 1-2) and Impeller Species 1 (Figures 5A-5B) in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examiner has not identified specific claims directed to specific species. Firstly the applicant argues that the present requirement does not sufficiently explain how the asserted species are defined in claim terms. This is not persuasive since the claims (for instance claim 1) clearly discloses a pump unit (Pump unit species) comprising a plurality of motor pumps (motor pump species), wherein each motor pump comprises an impeller (impeller species) and so further explanation is not deemed necessary since the applicant has themselves provided explanations of each embodiment of these species that may interchangeably be used in a single pump unit of varying designs (as evident from paragraph [0015] of the instant specification, each brief description of the figures is accompanied by clear nomenclature related to a pump unit, a motor pump or an impeller). As stated clearly in MPEP 1893.03 (d). Unit of Invention, Form paragraph ¶ 18.20 Election of Species in National Stage Applications Submitted Under 35 U.S.C. 371: “Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.” As can be seen in this section, it is the responsibility of the applicant to identify the claims directed to the elected species and there is no specific requirement for the examiner to identify claims for each species.
The argument regarding whether there are any specific claims directed to each individual invention, for instance a claim directed solely to an impeller, is irrelevant to the proposed grouping. One of ordinary skill in the art would glean from the instant specification that a single pump unit may use any one of the different species of motor pumps and additionally, each motor pump would use any one of the impeller species. However, a motor pump could not use two distinct impellers of two different species simultaneously.
Furthermore, there are no generic claims because none of the claims are generic to all the pump units. For instance, the elected pump unit of species PU6 (Figure 38) is captured in claim 1. For convenience, claim 1 is mapped to Figure 38 as follows: “A pump unit, comprising: a plurality of motor pumps (MP) comprising a front-stage side motor pump (left MP, henceforth referred to as MP1) and a rear-stage side motor pump (right MP, henceforth referred to as MP2); and a connector (400) configured to connect the motor pumps (MPs), wherein each of the motor pumps (MPs) comprises: an impeller (1A, 1B); a rotor (2) fixed to the impeller; a stator (3) arranged radially outward of the rotor (2); and a bearing (5) configured to support the impeller, wherein the rotor (2) and the bearing (5) are arranged in a suction side region (Ra) of the impeller, and wherein the connector (400) is configured to connect a front-stage side discharge casing (22) of the front-stage side motor pump (MP1) and a rear-stage side suction casing (21) of the rear-stage side motor pump (MP2).” However, this claim does not read over non-elected species such as Species PU2 wherein the motor pumps in the pump unit are arranged in parallel and not in series. Similarly, none of independent claims 3, 7 or 9 read over all the different species and so no claim is generic.
The grouping of species presented by the examiner is necessary since there is nothing preventing the applicant from adding a new independent claim for instance directed to solely a motor pump or an impeller in the future. Alternately, if a new pump unit claim is introduced with features directed to a different non-elected motor pump species or a non-elected impeller species, then the potential prior art rejections have to be reconsidered and/or changed accordingly. Hence, without a proper election of each category of species presented above, the examiner faces a great burden of examination since time is extremely limited.
Applicant has also stated that the traversal could be withdrawn if the examiner agrees to examine the application by grouping the Figures 38-49 together. However, this is not a reasonable request as each of these Figures are directed to several different species of the pump units (PU6-PU17) with each species having different structural features. At best, the examiner can agree to examining PU6 (Figure 38) and PU7 (Figure 39) since elected claim 2 is directed to Figure 39 (claimed seal members 405 and 406 are not present in Figure 38 and only shown in Figure 39) in order to expedite prosecution. This assertion also indicates that the applicant has an understanding of the various species and is simply trying to argue unrelated points to claim that the grouping is not proper. Inherently, since the specification is written by the applicant, they have the best understanding of the claimed invention and since they have provided descriptions of various embodiments, they are required to know what they have invented without the examiner’s input. This includes which claims belong to which elected or non-elected species.
The other assertions that there is no burden on the examiner to examine multiple species are merely speculative and appear to be counsel’s own interpretation of examination. Each species has distinct structural features that require several examination steps for proper examination and given the extremely limited time constraints, an excessive number of species such as the number of species presented in the current application, represent a great burden to the examiner.
The applicant is urged to consider adding more claims directed to the elected species if desired. However the other arguments remain unpersuasive and so the grouping of species is based on the instant application’s paragraph [0015] and is deemed proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (herein Yamamoto) (JP 07243392 A, English translation appended). Regarding Claim 1:In Figure 3, Yamamoto discloses a pump unit (pump unit with motor pumps A and B), comprising: a plurality of motor pumps (A, B) comprising a front-stage side motor pump (A) and a rear-stage side motor pump (B); and a connector (56) configured to connect the motor pumps (see paragraph [0019] of the translation and Figure 3), wherein each of the motor pumps (A, B) comprises: an impeller (9); a rotor (18) fixed to the impeller (via shaft 7 as seen in Figure 3 and mentioned in paragraph [0012]); a stator (13) arranged radially outward of the rotor (as seen in Figure 3); and a bearing (32, 33) configured to support the impeller (see paragraph [0017]), wherein the rotor (18) and the bearing (5) are arranged in a suction side region (right half of each of A and B can be considered the suction side region such that the rotor and the bearing are at least partially in this right half forming the suction side region of the impeller) of the impeller (9), and wherein the connector (56) is configured to connect a front-stage side discharge casing (right side of Figure 3 with casing portions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 form the front-stage side discharge casing, henceforth referred to as FSD) of the front-stage side motor pump (A) and a rear-stage side suction casing (left side of Figure 3 with casing portions 1, 2, 3, 4 and10 form the rear-stage side suction casing, henceforth referred to as RSD) of the rear-stage side motor pump (B).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (herein Yamamoto) (JP 07243392 A, English translation appended) in view of Shibata et al. (herein Shibata) (US 4,588,353).
Regarding Claim 2:In Figure 3, Yamamoto discloses the pump unit (pump unit with motor pumps A and B), wherein the connector (56) comprises: a second seal member (seal 12 contacting the left side of partition wall 57 formed in connector 56) configured to be in close contact with the rear-stage side suction casing (seal 12 contacts RSD at 10 as seen in Figure 3).Yamamoto fails to disclose: a first seal member configured to be in close contact with the front-stage side discharge casing.However, it is extremely well known in the art that when pump casing flanges are interconnected to each other, a seal is typically disposed at this connection in order to prevent fluid leakage at this flange interface. For instance, in Figure 1, Shibata discloses a similar motor pump wherein two interconnected flanges (flange of frame 6 and flange of motor cover 12 connected by bolts 11) have a seal member (10) interposed therebetween. Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and Shibata’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to add a first seal member (of the type taught by Shibata) in Yamamoto’s connector (56) at the connector flange (52) configured to be in close contact with the front-stage side discharge casing (at the front-stage side discharge casing flange 51, i.e., the seal would be interposed between 51 and 52) since doing so would ensure that fluid leakage could be limited at this flange interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See appended PTO-892 for more relevant prior art related to pump units and motor pump structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746