DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2,4-10,12-19 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1 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.
Claims 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,5,7 of US Application 18734744 (now Patented). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 is dependent on cancelled Claim 11.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2,4-6,8,12-14,16,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by US Publication 20230184245 to Metz.
As to claim 1, Metz discloses A screw pump comprising: a casing (5) with an inlet (6), an outlet (9) and a flow chamber between the inlet and the outlet (Fig2 chamber of interior of 2); and at least two screws (4,3,4) housed in the flow chamber to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet (Fig 2); wherein the casing comprises a shell (5) within which an insert (2) defining the flow chamber is housed, wherein space is formed between a sidewall of insert and the shell (10, Fig 4).
As to claim 2, Metz discloses the flow chamber is defined by a tubular wall of the insert that has a constant wall thickness (2 constant along length of 10).
As to claim 4, Metz discloses the space is separate from the flow chamber and is not part of it (10 is outside of flow chamber inside 2).
As to claim 5, Metz discloses the interface between the shell and the insert is designed to allow, when in use, circulating fluid to enter the space (flow as shown Fig 2,4).
As to claim 6, Metz discloses wherein the insert comprises one or more anti-rotation protrusions which engage with the shell to inhibit relative rotation between them (flange protrusions 19,16 interference fit for anti rotation).
As to claim 8, Metz discloses comprising a coupling connected to one of the screws to couple the screw to a drive motor (9/3 Fig 5).
As to claim 12, Metz discloses a coupling connected to one of the screws to couple the screw to a drive motor (9/3 Fig 5), a screw pump assembly comprising a pump according to claim 1 (interpreted as believed intended in light of 112 above) and a drive motor coupled to the flexible coupling to drive the screws so as to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet (11).
As to claim 13, Metz discloses A screw pump comprising: a casing (5) with an inlet (6), an outlet (9) and a flow chamber between the inlet and the outlet (Fig2 chamber of interior of 2); and at least two screws (4,3,4) housed in the flow chamber to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet (Fig 2); wherein the casing comprises a shell (5) within which an insert (2) defining the flow chamber is housed, wherein the insert comprises one or more anti-rotation protrusions which engage with the shell to inhibit relative rotation between them (flange protrusions 19,16 interference fit for anti rotation).
As to claim 14,19, Metz discloses the flow chamber is defined by a tubular wall of the insert that has a constant wall thickness (2 constant along length of 10).
As to claim 16, Metz discloses comprising a coupling connected to one of the screws to couple the screw to a drive motor (9/3 Fig 5).
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 7,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 20230184245 to Metz as applied to Claim 1,13 above in view of US Patent 8308463 to Katoaka.
As to claim 7,15, 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,6,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by GB906430.
As to claim 1, GB906430 discloses A screw pump comprising: a casing with an inlet, an outlet and a flow chamber between the inlet and the outlet (Fig4); and at least two screws (2,3) housed in the flow chamber to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet (Fig 4); wherein the casing comprises a shell (8) within which an insert (20) defining the flow chamber is housed, wherein space is formed between a sidewall of insert and the shell (9).
As to claim 6, GB906430 discloses wherein the insert comprises one or more anti-rotation protrusions which engage with the shell to inhibit relative rotation between them (bolts 7).
As to claim 13, GB906430 discloses A screw pump comprising: a casing with an inlet, an outlet and a flow chamber between the inlet and the outlet (Fig4); and at least two screws (2,3) housed in the flow chamber to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet (Fig 4); wherein the casing comprises a shell (8) within which an insert (20) defining the flow chamber is housed, wherein the insert comprises one or more anti-rotation protrusions which engage with the shell to inhibit relative rotation between them (bolts 7).
Claims 13-14,16,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by US Patent 11339781 to Deichmann.
As to claim 13, Deichmann discloses A screw pump comprising: a casing 46,18) with an inlet, an outlet and a flow chamber between the inlet and the outlet (Col 6, Line 53-61); and at least two screws (12,14) 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 (46,18) within which an insert defining the flow chamber is housed (16), wherein the insert comprises one or more anti-rotation protrusions which engage with the shell to inhibit relative rotation between them (56”, Col 9, line 20-34).
As to claim 14,19, Deichmann discloses the flow chamber is defined by a tubular wall of the insert that has a constant wall thickness (Fig 2 wall of 16 constant over 50 percent of the length).
As to claim 16, Deichmann discloses comprising a flexible coupling connected to the motor coupling of the center shaft of the drive screw (as best understood in light of 112 above, any material will have flexible aspect Col 9, Line 4-19).
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 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11339781 to Deichmann as applied to Claim 13 above in view of US Patent 8308463 to Katoaka.
As to claim 15, Deichmann discloses A screw pump comprising: a casing (18) with an inlet , an outlet and a flow chamber between the inlet and the outlet (Col 6, Line 53-61); and at least two screws (12,14) housed in the flow chamber to force a fluid flow through the flow chamber from the inlet to the outlet.
Deichmann 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 Deichmann 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.
Note:
Claim 9-10,17,18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, if these claims are brought into the independent claim this may result in alternative Double Patenting Issues due to the number of co-pending cases and their ongoing prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Double Patenting will be held in abeyance until issue the examiner will maintain Double Patenting until such time.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Deichmann does not disclose the anti rotation component the examiner cites the new above rejection feature of Deichmann and the rejection utilizing GB906430.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JESSE SAMUEL BOGUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 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 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.
JESSE SAMUEL. BOGUE
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/JESSE S BOGUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746