DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 02 March 2026.
Claims 1-3 are canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 4-6 are newly presented by the Applicant.
Claims 4-6 are being considered.
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 Remarks
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the baffle plate are not found persuasive since the baffle plate meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term liner.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the baffle plate distributing water are not found persuasive, since it is the rotation of the shaft with water holes 62 that “distributes” the water and it is the presence of the baffle/liner 57 that prevents the water from hitting the casing, while guiding the water to the space between the liner 28 and the impeller. In other words the baffle functions as a liner.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to frustoconical are not found persuasive since the outer portion 28 of the liner is disk shaped and the claim language does not require the inner liner portion to be disk shaped. It is noted, at least a portion of the baffle 57 is disk shaped.
The Applicant’s conclusory statement pertaining to “the inner face of the side liner 28 is not located on the outer peripheral surface of the baffle plate,” are not found persuasive since Figure 1 clearly shows the inner face of the side liner 28 is located on the outer peripheral surface of the baffle plate. Note the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “outer peripheral,” includes “outer edge.”
A new rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment, commensurate with the Office’s original position.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for at least the same reasons as explained above.
A new rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment, commensurate with the Office’s original position.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "alignment features," first introduced in claim 5:
the outer liner engagement face includes at least one outer liner alignment feature arranged to engage with another at least one casing alignment feature that aligns the outer liner portion with respect to the inner liner portion (see [0026]) and the corresponding structure may refer to any arrangement including at least one or any of the protrusions, recesses or planes (see [0080]) or an equivalent thereof.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “alignment features” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 5. No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hause et al (US 1727703), hereafter referred to as Hause.
Regarding Claim 4, Hause discloses the following:
An outer liner part (28; FIG. 1) configured for removeable engagement with an inner liner part (57; FIG. 1) to form an annular disk shaped (at least portion 28 is disk shaped) drive side liner (57 in combination with 28; FIG. 1) for engagement with an outer casing (21, FIG. 1) in a centrifugal slurry pump, the outer liner part (28; FIG. 1) comprising:
a central axis (center of shaft 24);
an inner peripheral surface (inner peripheral surface of 28) defining an outer liner aperture (aperture of 28) sized to receive the inner liner part (57; FIG. 1);
a wear face (face of 28 facing the impeller) having a planar and smooth surface and configured to face a suction side of the pump; and
an engagement face (face of 28 facing the drive) opposite the wear face (face of 28 facing the impeller) configured to face a drive side of the pump (as seen in FIG. 1);
wherein the outer liner aperture (aperture of 28) is sized to receive the inner liner part (57; FIG. 1) such that in use the inner peripheral surface (inner peripheral surface of 28) of the outer liner part (28; FIG. 1) is located on an outer peripheral surface of the inner liner part (57; FIG. 1) and an outer peripheral surface of the outer liner part (28; FIG. 1) contacts the outer casing (21, FIG. 1), and
the outer liner part (28; FIG. 1) and the inner liner part (57; FIG. 1) are coaxial (as seen in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hause discloses the following:
The outer liner part (28; FIG. 1) of claim 1,
wherein the engagement face (face of 28 facing the drive) includes alignment features (holes that accept bolts 32; it is the bolts that align 28 over 57) to enable alignment of the outer liner part (28; FIG. 1) with the inner liner part (57; FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hause et al (US 1727703), hereafter referred to as Hause, in view of Burgess et al (US 20110142599), hereafter referred to as Burgess.
Regarding Claim 6, Hause discloses the following:
The outer liner part (28; FIG. 1) of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the inner liner part (57; FIG. 1) is made of steel (page 2, lines 45-51) and the outer liner (28) is made of carbon steel (see page 2, lines 54-55);
Hause does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the inner face includes an elastomeric material for forming a sealing engagement with the outer face of the inner liner part.
However Burgess teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to provide pump liners formed of either hard metals or elastomers ([0004]); it is common to use elastomer liners to impart wear-resistance ([0134]); it is typical for two piece liners to be made of elastomers ([0107]); thus resulting in the limitation
Hause as modified by Burgess teaches the following:
wherein the inner peripheral surface (inner peripheral surface of 28) includes an elastomeric material (the steel material of Hause is substituted with the elastomer material of Burgess; thus the inner peripheral surface is also made of elastomer) to form an engagement between the inner liner part (57; FIG. 1) and the outer liner part (28; FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the steel material of the liners as disclosed by Hause, with the elastomer liner material, as disclosed by Burgess, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a wear-resistant liner material (see Burgess [0134]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the known liner material of Hause, with the known liner material of Burgess yields the predictable result of substituting one known means to provide wear resistant liners for another known means to provide wear resistant liners, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). It is further noted, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination, and in this case Burgess discloses the aforementioned material(s) is/are known material(s) suitable for the intended purpose of providing wear resistant pump liners (see MPEP 2144.07).
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 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 C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached on (571) 272-8648. 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 CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745