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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6, 2025 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation of adjustable securement element is withdrawn as the limitation has been removed.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 9 based on Muhs. These rejections have been withdrawn as the applicant’s arguments are persuasive with regard to at least the fact of Muhs not disclosing the newly claimed submersible aspect of the pump.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection based on Zhang in view of Kohlberg. This ground of rejection is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection based on Zhang in view of Hawley (U.S Patent 3,206,036), Burgess et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20100135765), and Frater et al. (U.S Patent 4,521,151) is made below. The use of Kohlberg is removed from the rejection; therefore the applicant’s arguments made regarding the teachings of Kohlberg are moot. The teachings of Frater are simply used to address the submersible aspect of the pump as amended in claim 1.
The applicant argues that Zhang discloses a volute liner which the examiner maps to the claimed pump casing and is labeled (Ib) in Annotated Figure 1. The applicant appears to make the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a liner to be a casing. While not acquiescing to this assertion, the examiner disagrees that (Ib) in Annotated Figure 1 is an elastomeric liner as alleged by the applicant. The examiner finds Zhang discloses a structure similar to Van Der Blom et al. (EP 1972788). Van Der Blom Figure 10 discloses an inner casing (2); [0030]-[0031] that is a casing rather than a pump liner. Part of the reason why the examiner finds Zhang to be similar in structure Van Der Blom is that it has a substantial gap between a large portion of itself and the outer portions that the examiner labels (V) and (VI) in Annotated Figure 1.
The applicant also argues (V) of Zhang cannot be interpreted as a backing plate as it is not secured to the casing as required in the amended claims. The argument appears to interpret the language of “secured to the pump casing” as requiring a direct securing of the backing plate to the pump casing. The examiner disagrees and finds under a broadest reasonable interpretation that one element may be considered secured to another even if the securing is indirect. Securing under a broadest reasonable interpretation only means there is no relative movement between elements. In the disclosure of Zhang the securing even involves contact with the two elements even though a fastener or other device is not used between the two elements. Therefore, the examiner agrees with the applicant in the third paragraph of the remarks on page 9, that (Ib) is held in position between (V) and (VI) due to the bolts between (V) and (VI), but disagrees with the applicant’s conclusion that this does not satisfy the claim language.
The applicant further argues that Zhang does not have a pump casing with an inlet positioned opposite the annular radial surface nor an inlet with an annular inlet flange as required by the claims. The examiner clarifies in the rejection below that the flange denoted by (IIIb) and the associated cylindrical structure along with the structure that is bolted to in that is a part of (Ia) is considered to be the pump casing along with (Ib). The applicant’s arguments describe entirely different positions than the position of the examiner described above such as the inlet flange being mapped to (AA) and the pump casing being limited to (Ib).
The rejections are final as they are necessitated due to amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN204267360U) hereinafter Zhang in view of Hawley (U.S Patent 3,206,036) hereinafter Hawley, Burgess et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20100135765) hereinafter Burgess, and Frater et al. (U.S Patent 4,521,151) hereinafter Frater.
PNG
media_image1.png
703
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses:
A centrifugal pump arrangement, comprising:
a pump casing {Annotated Figure (Ia), (Ib), and (II)} having:
an outer circumferential periphery {Annotated Figure (Ib) generally forms the outer periphery of the pump casing},
an annular radial surface {Annotated Figure (Ic)},
a volute {Annotated Figure 1 (Ia) and (Ib)},
an outlet in fluid communication with the volute {Annotated Figure 1 (II) is an outlet in fluid communication with the volute (Ia), (Ib)) and
an inlet positioned opposite the annular radial surface {Annotated Figure 1 (IIIa) is positioned opposite of (Ic)},
the inlet having an annular inlet flange {Annotated Figure 1 (IIIb)};
an impeller positioned within the volute of the pump casing {Annotated Figure 1, impeller (5) is positioned within the volute (Ia)/(Ib) of the pump casing};
a wear plate located adjacent the impeller {Annotated Figure 1 (IV) is adjacent (5)}; and
a backing plate positioned adjacent to the annular radial surface of the pump casing {Annotated Figure 1 (V) is adjacent to (Ic)},
the wear plate being positioned between the impeller and the backing plate {Annotated Figure 1 wear plate (IV) is between the impeller (5) and the backing plate (V)}.
Zhang is silent regarding:
The centrifugal pump being submersible
a strainer device secured to the annular inlet flange of the pump casing,
where the strainer device comprises one or more brackets configured to engage with the inlet flange.
Hawley pertains to centrifugal pumps. Hawley teaches:
a strainer basket for preventing debris from entering into the inlet of the pump casing secured to an annular inlet flange {Figure 2, strainer basket (3) is secured to an annular inlet flange (14) the unlabeled bolts in Figures 1 /2 that go through (14)},
where the strainer basket comprises one or more brackets configured to engage with an inlet flange {Figures 1 / 2, the examiner considers the portion of strainer basket (3) that is connected with (14) through the unlabeled bolts to be one or more brackets}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a used a strainer upstream of the pump connected to an annular inlet flange of Zhang as taught by Hawley. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a strainer does not allow large solid matter from the liquid to be pumped {Hawley Column 1 lines 9-32}.
Burgess pertains to centrifugal pumps. Burgess teaches:
A strainer basket is attached to the annular inlet flange of the pump casing {Figure 1 (26) is connected to (12) via the unlabeled annular flanges}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a attached the strainer basket of Hawley directly to the pump casing of Zhang rather than at the end of the an inlet pipe to a pump based on the teachings of Burgess. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so connecting the strainer to the casing rather than the connecting the strainer to an inlet pipe is a simple substitution, see MPEP 2143 I B. The strainer would behave in a substantially identical manner in both configurations as the fluid would have to pass through the strainer before reaching the pump impeller. The substitution would be predictable as the only difference is the length that the fluid travels based on directly attaching the strainer to the pump casing rather than an inlet pipe.
Frater pertains to centrifugal pumps. Frater teaches:
The centrifugal pump is submersible {Column 4 lines 32-52}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the centrifugal pump of the combination of Zhang, Hawley, and Burgess be submersible. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a submersible pump is capable in operating in conditions in which it is submerged in fluid without issue due mainly to the sealed structure of the motor and Frater shows that this benefit is used for pumps that pump a slurry {Column 1 lines 22-38}.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses:
wherein the annular radial surface of the pump casing extends radially inwardly from the circumferential periphery to an open end of the pump casing to provide a receiving surface for the backing plate {Annotated Figure 1, (Ic) extends radially inwardly from the circumferential periphery defined by (Ib) to an open end of the pump casing as (IV) is present which means the pump casing is open. (Ic) provides a receiving surface for (V) indirectly as (IV) is in contact at this surface which is in contact with (V)},
the open end is further formed with a recess having a shoulder which is sized to receive and retain the wear plate {Annotated Figure 1, the open end of the casing has a recess with a shoulder to receive and retain the wear plate at (Ic)}.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further discloses:
wherein the annular inlet flange extends radially outwardly from the inlet and away from a central axis of the pump casing {Annotated Figure 1 (IIIb) extends radially outwardly away from the inlet (IIIa) and away from a central axis of the pump casing which extends in the left/right direction in the figure}
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further discloses:
wherein the backing plate is configured with a radially-extending annular body and an annular skirt portion that is sized and positioned to encircle the outer circumferential periphery of the pump casing {Annotated Figure 1 (V) has radially-extending annular body (Va) and annular skirt portion (Vb) that encircles the outer peripher of the pump casing (Ib)}.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang further discloses:
wherein the annular body of the backing plate has an inner surface and an outer surface {Annotated Figure 1 (Va1) and (Va2)},
the inner surface being positioned adjacent to the annular radial surface of the pump casing {Annotated Figure 1 (Va1) is adjacent to (Ib)} and
the outer surface is oriented in a direction away from the inlet of the pump casing {Annotated Figure 1 (Va2) has a normal that points to the left away from the inlet of the pump casing on the right},
the annular body further having a plurality of apertures for receiving securement devices to attach the backing plate to the pump casing {Annotated Figure 1, the annular body has a plurality of apertures (Vc) which secures the backing plate to the pump casing (Ib) via (IV)}.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang further discloses:
a base secured to the backing plate and positioned to intercalate the impeller between the base and the backing plate {Annotated Figure 1, (VI) is a base that is secured to (V); the base and backing plate intercalate the impeller (5) between them}.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang further discloses:
a drive housing positioned in proximity to the outer surface of the backing plate annular body and attached thereto {Annotated Figure 1 (1) is a drive housing that is in proximity to (Va2) and attached thereto, see (VIIa)},
the drive housing having a drive shaft extended therefrom for attachment to the impeller for rotation of the impeller within the volute {Annotated Figure 1, (1) has a drive shaft (VIII) extended therefrom that attaches to the impeller (5)}.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang further discloses:
slinger apparatus positioned adjacent to the wear plate and connected to the drive shaft for rotation {Annotated Figure 1 (6) is adjacent the wear plate (IV) and rotates by its connection to the drive shaft}.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang further discloses:
wherein the slinger apparatus is located between wear plate and the drive housing {Annotated Figure 1, (6) is located between (IV) and (1)}
Regarding claim 15, Zhang further discloses:
wherein the inner surface of the backing plate is configured with a recess into which an upper portion of the wear plate is received {Annotated Figure 1, the inner surface of the backing plate (Va1) has a recess which receives the upper portion of the wear plate (IV) near the location of the bolts (Vc)}.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang further discloses:
wherein the backing plate is configured with one or more holes formed through the annular body through which connector bolts are positioned to secure the wear plate to the pump casing {Annotated Figure 1, (V) has holes (Vc) formed through the annular body through which connector bolts are positioned that secure the wear plate to the pump casing by securing it the wear plate to the backing plate. The backing plate is secured to the pump casing}.
Claim 4 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Hawley, Burgess, and Frater as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hines (U.S Patent 4,538,746) hereinafter Hines.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhang, Hawley, Burgess, and Frater teaches the centrifugal pump of claim 3, but does not teach:
wherein the annular inlet flange is formed with a plurality of recesses extending inwardly toward the central axis from an outer peripheral edge of the annular inlet flange.
Hines pertains to the problem faced by the inventor of securing one element to another. See MPEP 2141.01(a) IV. Examples of analogous art in the mechanical arts include: Stevenson v. Int'l Trade Comm., 612 F.2d 546, 550, 204 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1979) ("In a simple mechanical invention a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist."). Hines teaches:
wherein the annular inlet flange is formed with a plurality of recesses extending inwardly toward the central axis from an outer peripheral edge of the annular inlet flange {Figure 1 (17) is a flange with a plurality of recesses that extend inwardly toward the central axis from the outer peripheral edge of (17)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the annular inlet flange with the strainer of the combination of Zhang, Hawley, Burgess, and Frater via a connection as taught by Hines (which results in the claimed recesses). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it is a simple substitution to obtain predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I B. Both bolted connections and bayonet type connections are known connection types to join two components. A person of ordinary skill in the art is aware of bayonet type connections as it is a basic mechanical interaction that even non-engineers may encounter and understand. The result of the substitution is predictable as the result is that the two components are connected together.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zhang, Hawley, Burgess, and Frater teaches the centrifugal pump of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein each bracket is configured as angle brackets providing an arm extending in a direction towards a central axis of the centrifugal pump with each arm positioned to register with an upper surface of the annular inlet flange.
Hines pertains to the problem faced by the inventor of securing one element to another. See MPEP 2141.01(a) IV. Examples of analogous art in the mechanical arts include: Stevenson v. Int'l Trade Comm., 612 F.2d 546, 550, 204 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1979) ("In a simple mechanical invention a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist."). Hines teaches:
wherein each bracket is configured as angle brackets providing an arm extending in a direction towards a central axis with each arm positioned to register with an upper surface of the annular inlet flange {Figure 1 (14) may be considered an angled bracket that extends toward the central axis and registers with (18) of the annular inlet flange (17)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the annular inlet flange with the strainer of the combination of Zhang, Hawley, Burgess, and Frater via a connection as taught by Hines (which results in the claimed recesses). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it is a simple substitution to obtain predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I B. Both bolted connections and bayonet type connections are known connection types to join two components. A person of ordinary skill in the art is aware of bayonet type connections as it is a basic mechanical interaction that even non-engineers may encounter and understand. The result of the substitution is predictable as the result is that the two components are connected together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 requires that each bracket is formed with a set screw to secure the strainer basket to the inlet flange. While Hawley does have a unlabeled fasteners that are used to connect the strainer basket with the inlet flange of (14), these would not be considered “set screws”. Set screws are a specific type of screw that generally use the end of the set screw to prevent rotation by applying a force to the surface. The fasteners of Hawley are conventional fasteners where the threads apply the clamping force between the two objects. There is insufficient evidence to suggest further modifying the combination of Zhang, Hawley, Burgess, and Frater to have the set screw as claimed. It is noted that the connection of the strainer with the annular inlet flange would need a different structure for the set screw to be an appropriate element. Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Van Der Blom et al. (EP 1972788) teaches a pump casing structure with additional elements that may be interpreted as varying types of plates.
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 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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745