DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites, “The impellor assembly according to claim 2, wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the first material is higher than that of the second material, and wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the first material is within 25% of two times the coefficient of thermal expansion of the second material.”
The Examiner respectfully notes the immediate Specification only has definite support for “two times that of the second material” (Pg.2: 27-30 and Pg.8:27-30) as substantially and approximately are undefined in the immediate disclose (see Non-Final Rejection 04/23/2025 Pg.2-3, Final Rejection 09/23/2025 Pg.4-5). Additionally, there appears to be no recitation or indication of “the coefficient of thermal expansion of the first material is within 25% of two times the coefficient of thermal expansion of the second material” in the immediate Specification, or the original claims; and therefore was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art.
Claim 10 recites, “The impellor assembly according to claim 9, wherein the bearing arrangement comprises a bearing mounted to a bearing race, the bearing race comprising a material, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the bearing race material being within 15% of the coefficient of thermal expansion of the material of the shaft.”
The Examiner respectfully notes the immediate Specification only has definite support for “a material having the same coefficient of thermal expansion as the material of the shaft” (Pg. 3:13-17) as substantially and approximately are undefined in the immediate disclose (see Non-Final Rejection 04/23/2025 Pg.3, Final Rejection 09/23/2025 Pg.5). Additionally, there appears to be no recitation or indication of “the coefficient of thermal expansion of the bearing race material being within 15% of the coefficient of thermal expansion of the material of the shaft” in the immediate Specification, or the original claims; and therefore was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected based on its dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are allowed.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kunzelmann (DE 10 2016 119 233 A1) discloses an impellor assembly (Fig. 1) for a liquid hydrogen pump (the Examiner notes that the impeller disclosed in Kunzelmann would be fully capable of being used in a liquid hydrogen pump and there for is “for a liquid hydrogen pump”), the assembly comprising:
a shaft (2);
one or more impellors (4) mounted to the shaft;
a fastener (5) configured to engage with the shaft at a first engagement point (10,11) and with the one or more impellor at a second engagement point (near 5 on the impeller, it is affixed to the shaft through the head and the threads) to axially clamp the one or more impellor to the shaft (Fig. 1), and axially unconstrained length (6, 8) of the fastener being defined by an axial distance between the first and second engagement points (Fig. 1) wherein;
an axial extent (6) of a clamped portion of the one or more impellors corresponds to the axially unconstrained length of the fastener (Fig. 1); and the fastener and the impellor comprise a material (aluminum, [0025]) having a first coefficient of thermal expansion and the shaft comprises a material (steel, [0025]) having a second coefficient of thermal expansion wherein the first and second coefficients of thermal expansion are different ([0025], “both materials have different coefficients of expansion.”
However; Kunzelmann nor any of the prior art of record disclose, teach, or suggest; “and wherein the axial distance is within 20% of the axial extent” and Kunzelmann is completely silent on the ratio between the length of the fastener and the length of the impeller portion.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745