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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-9 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 5/26/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden and Claim 10 must be made by the process of Claim 1. This is not found persuasive because Claim 10 is a product by process claim, NOT a process claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The determination of patentability in product-by-process claims is based on the product itself even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process. Id. Therefore, “[i]f the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Id. Thus, Claim 10 merely recites components bonded via a plastic layer, i.e. the resulting structure of Claim 1, and do not impart the process itself except to define the resulting structure. Thus, the structure having an exterior melt bonding between component could have the plastic pre-formed as an outer layer and then melted to bond via heat from the metal housing and cooled, or equally, the same plastic could be injected into the same area between the parts an around one part and the cooled. The resulting structure is the same each way, i.e. parts joined via a cooled plastic layer, and readable on claim 10, but Claim 1, as a process claim requires certain elements a product claims such as Claim 10 cannot. Thus, these are treated as distinct groups, one considered a bonding method handled by process Examiners who perform search focused on manufacturing methods, and the other a product part handled by Examiner who handle pumps or miscellaneous products to perform a structurally oriented search. The inventions are independent or distinct. There would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. Therefore, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3,6” has been used to designate both Fig. 2 showing a “stator assembly” and Fig. 3 showing a “stator” that is only a portion of said assembly (See specification objection below for further clarity). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "3" and "6" have both been used to designate the same part (See specification objection below for further clarity). 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Element [4] is used to refer to both “at least one outer side” and “the component” (See instant USPgPub US2025/0135731, page 2, paragraph [0038]). Also, the distinction between component [3] and stator assembly [6] is not clear and they appear to be the same thing made confusing by using different numbers and different names but referring to the same part. The specification also says element [4] is element [6], implying [3], [4], and [6] all refer to the same overmolded stator assembly, elements also used in Fig. 3, even though this apparently only shows a non-overmolded stator [7], and not the stator assembly of both plastic [5] and stator [7]. In other places, element [4] is only the outer side of stator assembly [6], thus the statement that it is a component [4] that IS stator assembly [6] would appear incorrect.
It would appear component [3] is entirely superfluous and should be removed from both figures and re-labeled as the stator assembly [6] within the text, as its inclusion merely creates confusion. It would appear both [3] and [6] are inappropriately included in Fig. 3, and only [6] should be included in Fig. 2, or more appropriately, [6],[7], since Fig. 2 would appear to show a part, i.e. stator assembly [6] with plastic [5] overmolded on stator [7], but both the figures and text are very vague on this. If there is a distinction between the component [3] and the stator assembly [6], it is completely unclear and Examiner requires clarification on this point and also on any confusion specified above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 17 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.
Claim 7 states “a plurality of depressions directed one of parallel and transversely.” This is unclear. Examiner assume Applicant means “a plurality of depressions directed one of either parallel [[and]] or transversely.”
Claim 5, on which Claim 7 is dependent, states the “further component is stator assembly” and Claim 1, on which Claim 5 is dependent, states plastic is on an outer side of the further component, i.e. stator assembly, and this plastic of the stator assembly melts and joins to the metal housing. Claim 17 also states “the stator assembly is completely encapsulated with the plastic” apparently the plastic is distinct from the stator assembly and thus able to encapsulate it as a distinct material, but then states this encapsulation means the outer surface of the stator assembly itself is plastic. This does not make sense. The claims and spec indicate the plastic is PART of the stator assembly and this plastic is bonded to the metal housing. Claim 17 states the stator assembly, which include the plastic bonded to the metal house, is completely encapsulated with the plastic. This does not make sense because in implies the plastic that bonds to the metal housing must be completely encapsulated in a distinct plastic. This would presumably preclude bonding of the plastic of the stator assembly. Thus, Claim 17 is not coherent. Examiner assume the entire outside of the stator assembly is a plastic.
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(s) 1-6, 8, 11-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moser et al (EP 3189867).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 8, and 16 Moser et al. teaches method of manufacturing a pump device for conveying a fluid (See page 1, paragraphs [0001]-[0002] and [0008] and page 7, paragraph [0035], teaching an piston driven injector for drugs, i.e. fluids, which is a pump; also not a preamble does not impart structure and is considered intended use) comprising:
providing a metal housing [2] (See Fig. 3 and page 5, paragraph [0024], wherein second housing part is metal such as aluminum);
providing a further component [1] that has plastic [5] on at least one outer side (See Fig. 2 and page 4, paragraphs [0019]-[0020] and page 6, paragraph [0033], wherein plastic [5] is overmolded via injection molded to surround further component [1], i.e. the first part);
bringing the at least one outer side of the further component [1] into contact with a connecting section of the metal housing [2] (See Fig. 3);
heating the metal [2] housing such that the plastic of the further component melts at the connecting section of the metal housing [2] and wets the connecting section;
terminating the heating of the metal housing such that the plastic hardens and the further component is thermally joined to the metal housing at the connecting section (See page 7, paragraph [0034], wherein the metal housing [2] is moved into contact with the plastic material [5], the metal is heat with induction, and the plastic [5] is melted, and then cooled to join the metal housing [2] to the plastic [5]).
Regarding Claim 2, 12 and 13, Moser et al. teaches the second metal housing [2] may be roughened or structured for improved bonding, implying depressions into which the plastic [5] flows (See page 7, paragraph [0034], lines 40-43), and note raised areas adjacent said depressions, which are inevitable in an uneven surface, are elevations as in Claim 12, each of the depression and elevation clearly filled and covered, respectively, via molten plastic [5] during the heat bonding.
Regarding Claim 4, its clear from the figure the portion of the housing [2] joined to plastic [5] resides toward an of an interior surface of the metal housing, any such surface near an end reasonable considered an “end face” (See Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claims 5-6, 11, 17 and 20, Moser et al. teaches the first housing, i.e. the further component [1] with plastic [5] is a housing for a does setting and drive mechanism with a piston rod for liquid medication (See page 7, paragraph [0035]). Examiner submits any static piece holding a drive for pumping, i.e. the piston rod, is a stator assembly wherein the main housing having recess [1d] is a stator and the plastic [5] may surround the recess [1d] of the stator, and note anything completely surrounding a part encapsulates it to some extent (See page 4, paragraph [0015], lines 9-12, page 5, paragraph [0022], page 7, lines 1-5 and Fig. 2, wherein it is clear the plastic surrounds the housing [1] over the recess [1d]). Examiner notes for Claim 11, the further component is completely undefined and may be considered to be merely the recess [1d] that is completely encapsulated and joined to metal housing [2]. For Claim 20, the circumferential direction of the end face is transverse to the central axis at all points. Note for Claim 17, even the stopper for the piston rod may be part of the stator assembly (See page 3, lines 5-8, and note stopper in in housing [1] when it is joined to housing [2] and housing [1] and plastic [5] are plastic encapsulating the stopper, a further component stator assembly, and effective joined to housing [2] via the plastic), and it is completely surrounded/encapsulated by the plastic of housing [1] and plastic [5], i.e. the plastic as claimed (See page 7, paragraph [0035], lines 50-57).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Moser et al. teaches exposing the metal [2] and plastic [5] to vibrations, i.e. a mechanical stress, during melting (See page 7, paragraph [0034], lines 28-31).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Sayama et al. (US 2013/0252014).
Regarding Claims 7, 18, and 19, Moser et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Moser et al. teaches a roughened surface but fails to explicitly defined parallel or transverse depressions. However, it is known as an alternative to roughening (See, for example, Sayama et al., page 1, paragraph [0003], teaching prior art metal roughening) to utilize organized protrusions, inherently form gaps/depression in between, in both the axial/longitudinal and circumferential/transverse direction when induction heating the metal in circumferential contact with resin so as to melt the resin in order to create a stronger bonded connection (See Sayama et al., page 3, paragraphs [0038]-[0039], page 5, paragraphs [0057]-[0060], teaching protrusions [26] are formed in circumferential, i.e. transverse to longitudinal, and cross-direction to circumferential, i.e. parallel in the metal, so the when the metal is induction heat the resin melts around the protrusions, filling a gaps/ depression, and creates a stronger bond). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize parallel and transverse protrusions in the metal as claimed. Doing so would have predictably enabled more secure melt bonding than roughened during the induction heating bonding procedure in Moser et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Moser et al. teaches the process of Claim 1 as described above and teaches cooling the resin to bond the metal [2] and plastic [5]. Moser et al. does not teach active cooling. However, active cooling in similar induction melt bonding processes is well-known in order to expediate cooling relative to ambient conditions (See, for example, Sayama et al., page 6, paragraph [0076], teaching ambient cooling or using a coolant, i.e. active cooling, to cool the induction melted resin). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary still in the art at the time of invention to utilize active cooling. Doing so would have predictably expediated cooling to set the bond, thus saving time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Malia (US 2021/0257868), teaching welding an outer housing to an overmolded stator; and Bader et al. (US 2004/0081566), teaching a metal housing over an overmolded stator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights