DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 6/1/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2,4-10,12-18,20 remain pending in the application. Claims 21-22 have been added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6,9 of US Application 18872467. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-2,4-6,8,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Publication 20230184249 to Metz.
As to claim 1, Metz discloses A screw pump comprising: a casing (7) with an inlet (9), an outlet (10) and a flow chamber between the inlet and the outlet (Fig 1); and at least two screws (3,4) housed in the flow chamber to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet (Abs); wherein the casing comprises a shell within which an insert (2) defining the flow chamber is housed, and wherein a space (16), extending along an entire length of the insert (Fig 1), is formed between a sidewall of the insert and the shell (16).
As to claim 2, Metz discloses the flow chamber is defined by a tubular wall of the insert that has a constant wall thickness (Fig 1,4; 2 constant thickness).
As to claim 4, Metz discloses the space is separate from the flow chamber and is not part of it (Fig 1,16).
As to claim 5, Metz discloses an interface between the shell and the insert is designed to allow, when in use, circulating fluid to enter the space (33,Fig 16).
As to claim 6, Metz discloses the insert comprises one or more anti-rotation protrusions which engage with the shell to inhibit relative rotation between them (26).
As to claim 8, Metz discloses a flexible coupling connected to one of the screws to couple the screw to a drive motor (Par 0044; equivalent to disclosure of applicant for non-limiting recitation of “flexible”).
As to claim 12, Metz discloses A pump assembly comprising: a screw pump according to claim 1; a coupling connected to one of the screws of the screw pump to couple the screw to a drive motor (Par 0044); and a drive motor coupled to the coupling to drive the screws so as to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
Claims 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 20230184249 to Metz as applied to Claim 1 above in view of US Patent 8308463 to Katoaka.
As to claim 7, Metz does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the screws comprises a center shaft made of a first material on which the screw is molded from a second material that is less stiff than the first material which is taught by Katoaka (metal alt adhesive resin Col 2 Line 5-10) (Abs, Col 2 Line 60-Col 3 Line 5) (Metal known to have a higher stiffness than epoxy or urethane resin).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Metz to include wherein at least one of the screws comprises a center shaft made of a first material on which the screw is molded from a second material that is less stiff than the first material using the teachings of Kataoka so as to avoid cracking of the rotors during construction and use (Kataoka: Col 1 Line 49-53) increasing life of the system.
Claims 13-14,16,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 20230184249 to Metz in view of US Patent 11339781 to Deichmann.
As to claim 13, Metz discloses A screw pump comprising: a casing (7) with an inlet (9), an outlet (10) and a flow chamber between the inlet and the outlet (Fig 1); and at least two screws (3,4) housed in the flow chamber to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet; wherein the casing comprises a shell (7) within which an insert (2) defining the flow chamber is housed, wherein each end of the insert comprises one or more anti-rotation protrusions which engage with the shell to inhibit relative rotation between them (26, A, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Metz shows a second end anti-rotation feature it does not discuss it.
Deichmann discloses equivalent second end anti-rotation feature (56”, Col 9, line 20-34).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the feature “A” above is the equivalent of Feature 56” of Deichmann and would act in an equivalent capacity to line up the insert in appropriate slots while acting in an anti rotation capacity.
As to claim 14, Metz discloses the flow chamber is defined by a tubular wall of the insert that has a constant wall thickness (Fig 1,4; 2 constant thickness).
As to claim 16, Metz discloses a coupling connected to one of the screws to couple the screw to a drive motor (Par 0044; equivalent to disclosure of applicant for non-limiting recitation of “flexible”).
As to claim 20, Metz discloses the one or more anti- rotation protrusions are tabs (26, A above).
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 20230184249 to Metz as applied to Claim 13 above in view of US Patent 8308463 to Katoaka.
As to claim 15, Metz does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the screws comprises a center shaft made of a first material on which the screw is molded from a second material that is less stiff than the first material which is taught by Katoaka (metal alt adhesive resin Col 2 Line 5-10) (Abs, Col 2 Line 60-Col 3 Line 5) (Metal known to have a higher stiffness than epoxy or urethane resin).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Metz to include wherein at least one of the screws comprises a center shaft made of a first material on which the screw is molded from a second material that is less stiff than the first material using the teachings of Kataoka so as to avoid cracking of the rotors during construction and use (Kataoka: Col 1 Line 49-53) increasing life of the system
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-10,17-18, 22 is 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. Claim 21 would be allowable by overcoming any Double Patenting Issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection using art recently provided by applicant in an IDS.
With regards to the Double Patenting Rejections, those of claims 1,13 have been withdrawn due to the narrowing amendments, however new Claim 21 stands rejected under Double Patenting.
With regards to interview request in the remarks the examiner has not determined any allowable subject matter different than that already discussed and is providing the present office action as the basis for any future interviews so both parties may be fully informed of the present state of the art.
It is noted that in claim 8 the term “flexible” has been re-introduced even though the claim is stated as being “Previously Presented” and no amendment indicators provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE SAMUEL BOGUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1406. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on 571-270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSE S BOGUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights