DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-4, 11, 12 and 19 have been amended. Claims 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 18 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112 rejection raised in the previous office action. They have been withdrawn.
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art of Dehrmann and Uchiumi fail to teach “the pump cover and the main housing are integrally formed”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding Dehrmann, even though 342 is “incorporated into the second housing section 300 as an independent component to be variable depending on the running wheel size and/or the desired pump performance” as Applicant correctly pointed in out, the claimed limitation of “the pump cover and the main housing are integrally formed” does not require a one-piece structure. Applicant’s specification does not set forth a special definition of the term “integrally formed” and it is therefore given its plain and ordinary meaning. The phrase “integrally formed” is a relatively broad term inclusive of means for maintaining parts in a fixed relationship as a single unit. (See In re Morris, Fed. Cir. 1997). As such, in Dehrmann, 342 is integrally formed with 300 since the parts are maintained in a fixed relationship which form a single unit during operation of the fluid control apparatus.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dehrmann et al. (US 11808362), hereinafter: “Dehrmann”.
In Regard to Claim 1
Dehrmann teaches:
A fluid control apparatus, comprising:
an actuation assembly(100);
at least two fluid subassemblies(110A,110C);
a limiting assembly(see annotated fig below); and
a main housing(200,300), wherein
at least one of the at least two fluid subassemblies comprises a pump assembly(Col 12, ln. 47-53), the actuation assembly comprises a stator assembly(210A,210B,210C,210D; Col 11, ln. 22-37), and the pump assembly comprises a rotor assembly(310A, 310B, 310C; Col 11, ln. 38-58), a positioning shaft(316,317) and an isolation sleeve(150,152);
the rotor assembly and the positioning shaft are limitedly arranged(via the limiting assembly, see annotated fig below), the rotor assembly comprises a magnetic assembly(Col 14; ln. 27-56), at least a part of the magnetic assembly is located within a range of a magnetic field of the stator assembly in an operation state(Col 11, ln. 38-58), and at least a part of the isolation sleeve is located between the stator assembly and the rotor assembly(visually apparent in Fig 2A-2B), wherein the main housing is provided with a first chamber(see annotated fig below), and at least a part of the pump assembly is located inside the first chamber(visually apparent in Fig 2A); and
the positioning shaft is located in the rotor assembly(316,317 is part of the rotor and is therefore located in the rotor assembly; Fig 2A-2B), a first side of the positioning shaft in an axial direction(see annotated fig below) and the isolation sleeve are limitedly arranged(isolation sleeve 150,152 limited by housing 200,300 and shaft 316,317 limited by the limiting assembly), the limiting assembly is arranged towards a second side of the positioning shaft in the axial direction(see annotated fig below), and the limiting assembly and the positioning shaft are limitedly arranged(via housing portion 342,300; see annotated fig below).
wherein the rotor assembly further comprises an impeller assembly(340), at least a part of the impeller assembly and the magnetic assembly are arranged in the axial direction of the rotor assembly(as visually apparent in Fig 2A,3, both extend axially along 310A,310B and 310C);
the pump assembly further comprises a pump cover(300,342), at least a part of the pump cover is located on an outer peripheral side of the impeller assembly(342 is located on an outer peripheral side of the impeller; Fig 1,2A), at least a part of the pump cover is located inside the first chamber(Fig 1,2A), at least a part of the limiting assembly is located at the pump cover(Fig 2A);
wherein the pump cover and the main housing are integrally formed(the phrase “integrally formed” is a relatively broad term inclusive of means for maintaining parts in a fixed relationship as a single unit; See In re Morris, Fed. Cir. 1997. As such, 342 is integrally formed with 300 because the parts are maintained in a fixed relationship which form a single unit during operation of the fluid control apparatus)
PNG
media_image1.png
588
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Regard to Claim 11
Dehrmann teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the main housing is further provided with second chambers(at 110B; Fig 1 and 4) and a communication passage(320A,320B), the first chamber and the second chamber are spaced apart(visually apparent in Fig 1), and the first chamber and at least one of the second chambers are in communication through the communication passage(110A is in communication with 110B via 320A, 320B); and
at least one of the at least two the fluid subassemblies comprises a valve assembly(110B comprises a valve assembly 330), the valve assembly comprises a valve core(330 is a valve core), and at least a part of the valve core is sealedly located inside the second chamber(see annotated fig below),
PNG
media_image2.png
582
868
media_image2.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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehrmann in view of Uchiumi (JP 2019157685). The English translation provided of JP2019157685 to be referenced hereinafter.
In Regard to Claim 2
Dehrmann teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein at least a part of the magnetic assembly is sleeved on an inner surface side of the stator assembly(as shown in Fig 2A, 3 at least part of the magnets are sleeved to an inner surface side of the stator assembly 200), and the isolation sleeve comprises an end wall portion(152) and a connecting portion(center portion of 152 at 312A; Fig 2A), wherein an extending direction of the end wall portion intersects with an axial direction of the rotor assembly(visually apparent in Fig 2A)
Dehrmann fails to teach:
in the axial direction of the rotor assembly, at least a part of the connecting portion protrudes from the end wall portion and a side of the positioning shaft and the connecting portion are limitedly arranged.
Uchiumi teaches:
An analogous fluid pumping assembly(1) having a rotor assembly(5), a stator assembly(6), a shaft(17), an isolation sleeve(11), wherein the rotor assembly and the shaft is limitedly arranged by a limiting assembly(Fig 4), the isolation sleeve having an end wall portion(11c) and a connecting portion(11h), wherein in the axial direction of the rotor assembly, at least a part of the connecting portion protrudes from the end wall portion(visually apparent from Fig 4) and a side of the positioning shaft and the connecting portion are limitedly arranged(visually apparent in Fig 4; P[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dehrmann to incorporate the teachings of Uchiumi to substitute the shaft supporting assembly of Dehrmann with the shaft supporting assembly Uchiumi such that the connecting portion protrudes from the endwall portion in an attempt to better hold the end of the shaft(P[0029]). Since both references are directed to pumping assemblies with similar rotor, stator and shaft holding configurations that function in the same manner, and the result is a simple substitution which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be the use of a protruding connecting portion to fix an end of the shaft. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these two references because it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In Regard to Claim 3
Dehrmann in view of Uchiumi teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above),
Dehrmann fails to teach:
the limiting assembly has a groove, and an end portion of a second side of the positioning shaft is located in the groove and abuts with a bottom wall of the groove
Uchiumi further teaches:
A limiting assembly having a groove(see annotated fig below), and an end portion of the a second side of the positioning shaft is located in the groove and abuts with a bottom wall of the groove(see annotated fig below); and the pump cover is fixed with the main housing by injection molding.
PNG
media_image3.png
740
1013
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation “the pump cover is fixed with the main housing by injection molding”, this is a product-by-process limitation. Examiner notes Applicant’s special definition of “being fixed by injection molding”, which means “to be formed into an integral structure by injection molding” as stated in P[0060] of the specification.
In accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product (in this case the pump cover fixed with the main housing), does not depend on its method of production (i.e. by injection molding), In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Further, where a product by process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Additionally, it has been held in re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). “[I]t is the patentability of the product claimed (in this case the pump cover fixed to the main housing) and not of the recited process steps (in this case by injection molding) which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (see MPEP 2113)
In Regard to Claim 4
Dehrmann in view of Uchiumi teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 3(see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the limiting assembly comprises a connecting rib and a supporting portion(see annotated fig above and Fig 6), wherein the connecting rib is distributed on an outer peripheral side of the supporting portion(see annotated fig above and Fig 6), the supporting portion is connected with the connecting rib, and the groove is located at the supporting portion(see annotated fig above and Fig 6); and
at least a part of the impeller assembly is located inside the first chamber(Fig 2A of Dehrmann), the main housing comprises a first duct(344) and a second duct(346) that are in communication with the first chamber(Col 14, ln. 27-56; Fig 2A; Fig 3 of Dehrmann), the connecting rib is connected with a peripheral wall of the first duct(Fig 4 and 6 of Uchiumi and Fig 2a of Dehrmann), the pump assembly has a pump chamber(Fig 2a of Dehrmann, chamber surrounding impeller 340), a first passage(344) and a second passage(outflow opening; Col 14, ln. 45-50), the pump cover forms at least a part of a wall portion of the pump chamber(342 forms at least part of a wall of the pump chamber), and the first passage and the second passage are located at the pump cover and are in communication with the pump chamber(344 and the outflow opening are in fluid communication with the pump chamber; Col 14, ln. 40-56).
In Regard to Claim 5
Dehrmann in view of Uchiumi teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 3(see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the rotor assembly comprises a first bearing(313; Fig 3 of Dehrmann) and a second bearing(313; Fig 3 of Dehrmann), and the first bearing and the second bearing are arranged in the axial direction of the rotor assembly(Fig 3 of Dehrmann); and
in the axial direction of the rotor assembly, the first bearing is located between the connecting portion and the magnetic assembly(313 at top of Fig 2A,3), and the second bearing is located between the magnetic assembly and the limiting assembly(313 at bottom of Fig 2A,3).
In Regard to Claim 6
Dehrmann in view of Uchiumi teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 5(see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the limiting assembly comprises a first gasket(see annotated fig above), and the first gasket is abutted between the second bearing and the pump cover(as shown in Fig 2A of Dehrmann, the end of the shaft is inserted into the limiting assembly between the second bearing and the pump cover 342, as such, in combination, the first gasket would be positioned between the second bearing 313 and the pump cover 342).
In Regard to Claim 9
Dehrmann in view of Uchiumi teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the isolation sleeve and the positioning shaft are fixed by injection molding(product-by-process limitation; the isolation sleeve and shaft are fixed to and one another forming an integral structure at 11h; Fig 4 of Uchiumi)), and the magnetic assembly, the impeller assembly, the first bearing and the second bearing are fixed(Fig 3 of Dehrmann depicts a rotor assembly wherein the magnetic assembly, the impeller assembly, and the first and second bearing are fixed together to form an integral rotor unit) by injection molding(product-by-process).
Examiner notes Applicant’s special definition of “being fixed by injection molding”, which means “to be formed into an integral structure by injection molding” as stated in P[0060] of the specification.
Regarding the limitation “fixed by injection molding”, this is a product-by-process limitation. In accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product (in this case the isolation sleeve and the positioning shaft being fixed or the magnetic assembly, the impeller assembly, the first bearing and the second bearing being fixed), does not depend on its method of production (i.e. by injection molding), In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Further, where a product by process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Additionally, it has been held in re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). “[I]t is the patentability of the product claimed (in this case the isolation sleeve and the positioning shaft being fixed or the magnetic assembly, the impeller assembly, the first bearing and the second bearing being fixed) and not of the recited process steps (in this case by injection molding) which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (see MPEP 2113)
In Regard to Claim 16
Dehrmann in view of Uchiumi teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 4(see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the rotor assembly comprises a first bearing(313; Fig 3 of Dehrmann) and a second bearing(313; Fig 3 of Dehrmann), and the first bearing and the second bearing are arranged in the axial direction of the rotor assembly(Fig 3 of Dehrmann); and
in the axial direction of the rotor assembly, the first bearing is located between the connecting portion and the magnetic assembly(313 at top of Fig 2A,3), and the second bearing is located between the magnetic assembly and the limiting assembly(313 at bottom of Fig 2A,3).
In Regard to Claim 19
Dehrmann in view of Uchiumi teaches:
The fluid control apparatus according to claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the main housing is further provided with second chambers(at 110B; Fig 1 and 4 of Dehrmann) and a communication passage(320A,320B), the first chamber and the second chamber are spaced apart(visually apparent in Fig 1 of Dehrmann), and the first chamber and at least one of the second chambers are in communication through the communication passage(110A is in communication with 110B via 320A, 320B - Dehrmann); and
at least one of the at least two the fluid subassemblies comprises a valve assembly(110B comprises a valve assembly 330), the valve assembly comprises a valve core(330 is a valve core), and at least a part of the valve core is sealedly located inside the second chamber(see annotated fig above).
Conclusion
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 BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights