DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were filed with the Preliminary Amendment dated 10/25/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 and 12/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawing in Fig 6 is made with faint lines that make it difficult to distinguish features.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 5, 7, 16, 17, 18, 31, and 40 show sectional views, but do not include the required hatching for the elements (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(3)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “in a limited manner” (lines 12 and 13) render the claim indefinite. The phrase “in a limited manner” is also repeated in claim 4, claim 5, claim 11, claim 12, claim 15, rendering the claims indefinite also. It is not clear what “in a limited manner” means or what it requires. The specification does not further define the meaning of “in a limited manner.” The examiner suggests deleting “in a limited manner” throughout the claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the fluid assembly" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends from claim 11. Claim 11 only recites “at least two fluid sub-assemblies” (claim 11, line 11) and not a fluid assembly. For purposes of examination, claim 13 will be construed as if it is written as “forming at least part of a [[the]] fluid assembly.”
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-14 are also rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0271123 (hereinafter “Rosinski”).
With regard to claim 15, Rosinski discloses a drive assembly (Figs 1-4), comprising a first housing (30 and drive components (motors 42, 43), wherein the first housing (30) comprises a bottom wall portion (horizontal portion of wall at and above 44 in Fig 3, see annotated Fig 3) and a limiting portion (31, portion of wall extending down from top of 30, see annotated Fig 3), the bottom wall portion (horizontal portion of wall at and above 44 in Fig 3, see annotated Fig 3) is connected to the limiting portion (31), at least part of the limiting portion (31) protrudes from the bottom wall portion (horizontal portion of wall at and above 44 in Fig 3, see annotated Fig 3); and at least one of the drive components (42) comprises a stator assembly (“the stator of the motors 42 and 43”, para [0016]), and the drive component comprising the stator assembly (42) is defined as a first drive component (42), at least part of the first drive component (42) is connected in the limiting portion (42 is within 31 (the limiting portion), see Fig 3) in a limited manner (as best understood, 42 is connected to 31 in a limited manner because not every portion of 42 is directly connected to 31), and at least another one of the drive components (43) is connected to the first housing (30) in a limited manner (as best understood, 43 is connected to 30 in a limited manner because not every surface/component of 43 is directly connected to 30).
PNG
media_image1.png
790
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 17 (as far as they are definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0271123 (hereinafter “Rosinski”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0294928 (hereinafter “Pub. 928”).
With regard to claim 1, Rosinski discloses a fluid control apparatus (see Figs 1-4), comprising: a drive assembly (assembly with 42+43); and a fluid assembly (assembly with 38, 39, 40, 41; para [0014]), which is connected to the drive assembly (see Figs 2-3); wherein the fluid assembly comprises at least two fluid sub-assemblies (one sub-assembly at 38/40 and a second sub-assembly at 39/41), the drive assembly comprises a first housing (30) and drive components (motors 42, 43, para [0014]), and each of the drive components (42, 43) cooperates with a corresponding one of the at least two fluid sub-assemblies (42 cooperates with 38/40 and 43 cooperates with 39/41, see fig 3); the first housing (30) comprises a bottom wall portion (horizontal portion of wall at and above 44 in Fig 3, see annotated Fig 3) and a limiting portion (31, portion of wall extending down from top of 30, see annotated Fig 3) connected to the bottom wall portion (see annotated fig 3; “connected to” because joined together/integral), and at least part of the limiting portion (31) protrudes from the bottom wall portion (31 protrudes down from top of 30 adjacent and above 44 in Fig 3); at least one of the drive components (42, 43) comprises a stator assembly (“the stator of the motors 42 and 43”, para [0016]), the drive component comprising the stator assembly (42) is defined as a first drive component (42), at least part of the first drive component (42) is connected in the limiting portion (42 is within 31 (the limiting portion), see Fig 3) in a limited manner (as best understood, 42 is connected to 31 in a limited manner because not every portion of 42 is directly connected to 31), and at least another one of the drive components (43) is connected to the first housing (30) in a limited manner (as best understood, 43 is connected to 30 in a limited manner because not every surface/component of 43 is directly connected to 30); and at least one of the at least two fluid sub-assemblies (38/40, 39/41) comprises a pump assembly (34/36 para [0014]), the pump assembly (34/36) comprises a rotor assembly, (motor’s rotor 42 on shaft 44+impeller 36 rotates so it is a “rotor”; see para [0023]).
Rosinski discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing the rotor assembly comprises a magnetic assembly, and the magnetic assembly is configured to be located within a magnetic field range of a corresponding stator assembly in an operating state.
Pub. 928 teaches that it is known in the art to provide a fluid control apparatus with a drive assembly (motor) and fluid assembly with a pump assembly including a rotor assembly (rotor 74+impeller 92 together, para [0082]), similar to that of Rosinski, to include the rotor assembly comprising a magnetic assembly (para [082]: “the illustrated impeller 92 can be a separate part or can be formed from over-molded polymeric material that also encapsulates magnets and other components of the rotor 74”; see also paras [0093] [0102]), and the magnetic assembly is configured to be located within a magnetic field range (inherent because required in order for the rotor/impeller to rotate) of a corresponding stator assembly (81) for the purpose of enabling the motor/stator to rotate the rotor/impeller (see paras [0082], [0093], [0102]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a rotor with a magnetic assembly to be located within a magnetic field range of a corresponding stator assembly as taught by Pub. 928 in place of the valve element of Klein, since the rotors/stators are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 2, Rosinski (as modified above) discloses that at least part of the limiting portion (31) extends from the bottom wall portion (horizontal portion of wall at and above 44 in Fig 3, see annotated Fig 3) toward the fluid sub-assembly (38/39/40/41); and the stator assembly (stator of motor 42, para [0016]) is fixed to the limiting portion (31, portion of wall extending down from top of 30, see annotated Fig 3) by injection molding (“insert molding” is a form of injection molding, para [0016]: “the stator of the motors 42 and 43 can be insert molded into the housing body 31”); or (because of the “or” in the claim, the remaining portion is not required), the first housing and the stator assembly are separate from each other, the limiting portion has a mounting cavity, and at least part of the stator assembly is located inside the mounting cavity.
With regard to claim 9, Rosinski (as modified above in claim 1) discloses that the drive assembly (42+43 assembly) has a first accommodation cavity (cavity around 46, see annotated Fig 3), the fluid control apparatus further comprises a controller (46; para [0016]: “A controller is provided in housing body 31, such as a circuit board(s) 46”) and a connection terminal (47), the controller (46) is located inside the first accommodation cavity (see Fig 3), and at least part of the connection terminal (47) is located outside the first accommodation cavity (shown in Fig 1); and the connection terminal (47) is electrically connected to the controller (46), and at least two of the drive components (42, 43) are electrically connected to the controller (46, see para 1; para [0016]).
With regard to claim 11, Rosinski discloses a method for manufacturing a fluid control apparatus (method inherent in apparatus disclosed), comprising: forming a drive assembly (42, 43), comprising: providing a first housing (30) and at least two drive components (motors 42, 43), wherein the first housing (30) comprises a bottom wall portion (horizontal portion of wall at and above 44 in Fig 3, see annotated Fig 3) and a limiting portion (31, portion of wall extending down from top of 30, see annotated Fig 3), the first housing (30) has a first accommodation cavity (cavity around 46, see annotated Fig 3), the bottom wall portion (horizontal portion of wall at and above 44 in Fig 3, see annotated Fig 3) forms part of a wall portion of the first accommodation cavity (see annotated Fig 3), at least part of the limiting portion (31, portion of wall extending down from top of 30, see annotated Fig 3) protrudes from the bottom wall portion (see annotated Fig 3), and at least one of the at least two drive components (42) comprises a stator assembly (“stator of the motors 42 and 43” para [0016]); and connecting at least part of the stator assembly in the limiting portion (42 is within 31 (the limiting portion), see Fig 3) in a limited manner (as best understood, 42 is connected to 31 in a limited manner because not every portion of 42 is directly connected to 31); providing at least two fluid sub-assemblies (one sub-assembly at 38/40 and a second sub-assembly at 39/41), wherein at least one of the at least two fluid sub- assemblies comprises a pump assembly (34/36 para [0014]), and the pump assembly (34/36) comprises a rotor assembly, (motor’s rotor 42 on shaft 44+impeller 36 rotates so it is a “rotor”; see para [0023]); and matching the drive assembly (42 + 43 assembly) with the pump assembly (36/34).
Rosinski discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing to allow a magnetic assembly of the rotor assembly to be located within a magnetic field range of a corresponding stator assembly in an operating state.
Pub. 928 teaches that it is known in the art to provide a fluid control apparatus with a drive assembly (motor) and fluid assembly with a pump assembly including a rotor assembly (rotor 74+impeller 92 together, para [0082]), similar to that of Rosinski, to include the rotor assembly comprising a magnetic assembly (para [082]: “the illustrated impeller 92 can be a separate part or can be formed from over-molded polymeric material that also encapsulates magnets and other components of the rotor 74”; see also paras [0093] [0102]), and the magnetic assembly is configured to be located within a magnetic field range (inherent because required in order for the rotor/impeller to rotate) of a corresponding stator assembly (81) for the purpose of enabling the motor/stator to rotate the rotor/impeller (see paras [0082], [0093], [0102]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a rotor with a magnetic assembly to be located within a magnetic field range of a corresponding stator assembly to match the rotor assembly with a corresponding stator assembly as taught by Pub. 928 in place of the valve element of Klein, since the rotors/stators are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 12, Rosinski (as modified above for claim 11) discloses that connecting at least part of the stator assembly (stator of motor 42) in the limiting portion (31) in a limited manner comprises: fixing the stator assembly (stator of motor 42) to the limiting portion (31, portion of wall extending down from top of 30, see annotated Fig 3) by injection molding (“insert molding” is a form of injection molding, para [0016]: “the stator of the motors 42 and 43 can be insert molded into the housing body 31”); or (because of the “or” in the claim, the remaining portion is not required) mounting the at least part of the stator assembly in a mounting cavity of the limiting portion in a limited manner.
With regard to claim 13, Rosinski (as modified above in claim 11) discloses that forming at least part of the fluid assembly, comprises: providing a main housing (33), wherein the main housing (33) has a first chamber (pump cavity 34); and assembling the pump assembly (34/36 para [0014]) with the main housing (33) (see Fig 3) so that at least part of the pump assembly (34/36) is located in the first chamber (pump impeller inside chamber 34); sealingly connecting the drive assembly (42+43 assembly) to a fluid assembly (assembly with 38, 39, 40, 41; para [0014]) (via seal 53; para [0015]).
With regard to claim 17, Rosinski (as modified above in claim 2) discloses that the drive assembly (42+43 assembly) has a first accommodation cavity (cavity around 46, see annotated Fig 3), the fluid control apparatus further comprises a controller (46; para [0016]: “A controller is provided in housing body 31, such as a circuit board(s) 46”) and a connection terminal (47), the controller (46) is located inside the first accommodation cavity (see Fig 3), and at least part of the connection terminal (47) is located outside the first accommodation cavity (shown in Fig 1); and the connection terminal (47) is electrically connected to the controller (46), and at least two of the drive components (42, 43) are electrically connected to the controller (46, see para 1; para [0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 10, 14, 16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “part of the isolation sleeve is located between the stator assembly and a corresponding rotor assembly; the isolation sleeve is fixed to the first housing by injection molding, or, the isolation sleeve and the first housing are separated from each other and sealingly connected to each other; and the isolation sleeve is fixed to the stator assembly by injection molding, or, the isolation sleeve and the stator assembly are separated from each other and at least part of the stator assembly is located between the isolation sleeve and the first housing” (claim 3 and similarly in claim 16); or “a pump housing and a transition terminal limited to the pump housing, the pump housing is sealingly connected to the first housing, and at least part of the stator assembly is located inside a chamber of the pump housing; and the stator assembly comprises a coil winding, the coil winding is electrically connected to a pin in the transition terminal, part of the transition terminal passes through the bottom wall portion and is located inside the first accommodation cavity, and the transition terminal is electrically connected to the controller” (claim 10); or “the valve assembly comprises a valve core and a valve core shaft, at least one of the at least two drive components comprises a motor, the main housing further comprises a second chamber spaced apart from the first chamber, the forming at least part of the fluid assembly further comprises :assembling the valve core and the valve core shaft into the second chamber, wherein at least part of the valve core shaft passes through the second chamber and is in transmission connection with an output shaft of the motor; and sealingly connecting a bottom cover to the main housing to form the fluid assembly” (claim 14) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
The closest prior art references of record are U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0271123; U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20130294928; and U.S. Pat. Pub. No.2015/0294928.
With regard to claim 3 and 16, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0271123 fails to teach or suggest such an isolation sleeve. Furthermore, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20130294928 and U.S. Pat. Pub. No.2015/0294928 teach away from such an isolation sleeve. For example, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20130294928 states that there is intentionally not full covering between the stator and rotor to allow for optical interfaced operation between the rotor and stator (see para [0092]).
With regard to claims 10 and 14, none of the cited references teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter.
It would not have been obvious to modify U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0271123, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20130294928, and/or U.S. Pat. Pub. No.2015/0294928 to arrive at the claimed subject matter without improper hindsight or without improperly changing the principle of operation of any of the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Pub. No.2015/0294928 discloses a fluid assembly with a pump and rotor and drive assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753