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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites the new limitation: “wherein the at least one through slot is a through slot extending substantially in a plane perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the rotor and extends over more than half a width of the input and/or the output of the motor, the width being measured in a circumferential direction of the drainage housing.” The original specification makes no mention regarding the specific width of the through slot and how it relates to the input and/or output of the motor. Furthermore, even though Figure 1 appears to show that the through slot (12 or 13) extends over a width of the input and/or the output of the motor, it is unclear from the Figure where exactly these widths are measured. Specifically, the input (3) and the output (4) both appear to be expanding in width from a radially inner point to a radially outer point. It is not known where exactly the claimed width of this input and/or output is being measured and if the claimed statement holds true for all widths measured at any point within the input and/or the output. Furthermore, it is not known if these Figures are drawn to scale since the original specification makes no mention of scale. As mentioned in MPEP 2125 II. “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.").” Due to these reasons, this claim appears to contain new matter to finds no support in the original specification or drawings.
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 1 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 1 recites the new limitation: “wherein the at least one through slot is a through slot extending substantially in a plane perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the rotor and extends over more than half a width of the input and/or the output of the motor, the width being measured in a circumferential direction of the drainage housing.” It is unclear from the claim and Figure 1, where exactly these widths are being measured. From Figure 1 it can be seen that the width of the input and or the output of the motor increases in width from the radially innermost portion to the radially outermost portion. Hence, the width measured at the radially innermost portion of the input/output would be substantially smaller than the width of the radially outermost portion of the input/output. It is not known if the width of the through slot (12 or 13) is supposed to be over more than half the width of the input (3) and/or output (4) over the entire span of the input and/or output or if these widths only correspond to the radially innermost portion of the input and/or output. Furthermore, it is noted that the phrase “over more than half” is open ended and includes several values such as 1x or 1.5x or 2x the width wherein it is unclear what the upper limit of this claimed width is.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabtree (US 2013/0048099) as evidenced by Maki et al. (herein Maki) (US 5,402,569). Regarding Claim 1:In Figures 1-6, Crabtree discloses an adding system (1, 2, see system in Figures 1-2) for fire-extinguishing units (used in firefight industry as mentioned in the abstract) for producing a mixture of extinguishing agent (water, see paragraph [0023]) and extinguishing agent additive (additive of choice, see paragraph [0023]) by adding an extinguishing agent additive to an extinguishing agent (see paragraph [0023], comprising a motor (1) able to be driven by a flow of extinguishing agent (as mentioned paragraph [0023]), with an input (fluid coupling 3) for supplying the extinguishing agent to the motor (as mentioned paragraph [0023]), an output (4) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the motor (as mentioned paragraph [0023]), and an output shaft (9) able to be driven by the motor (see paragraph [0025]), an adding pump (2) for conveying the extinguishing agent additive (see paragraph [0023]) which has an input shaft (interior portions of rotor 13) coupled to the output shaft of the motor (as seen in Figure 5, 13 is coupled to 9), an inlet (5) for providing the extinguishing agent additive, and an outlet (outlet connected conduit assembly 6, see Figure 3) for discharging the extinguishing agent additive (see paragraph [0023]), an adding line (portions of conduit assembly 6 downstream of check valve 8) having a first motor-side end (end of conduit assembly 6 connected to 4, see Figure 3, henceforth referred to as E1) and a second outlet-side end (end of conduit assembly 6 connected to check valve 8, see Figure 2, henceforth referred to as E2), wherein the motor-side end (E1) is fluidly connected to the output of the motor (connected to 4 as seen in Figure 2), an extinguishing agent additive line (line comprising check valve 8 and selector valve 7) having a first pump-side end (end connected to pump 2, henceforth referred to as P1) and a second adding line-side end (end connected to 7 and 8, henceforth referred to as P2), wherein the pump-side end (P1) is fluidly connected to the outlet of the adding pump (as seen in Figure 3, P1 is connected to the pump outlet) and the adding line-side end (P2) is fluidly connected to the adding line at an admixture point (admixture point formed by selector valve 7), wherein the motor (1) is a rotation motor in which a rotor (17) rotatably mounted in a drainage housing (14, 15), and wherein a wall (15) of the drainage housing (14, 15) comprises at least one through slot for the inlet of the extinguishing agent into the drainage housing and/or for the outlet of the extinguishing agent out of the drainage housing (15 is described as a perforated liner such the perforations closer to inlet 3 can form an inlet for the extinguishing agent while the perforations closer to the outlet 4 can form an outlet for the extinguishing agent, see paragraph [0025]. Each perforation can be viewed as a slot since it extends over a thickness of the liner as seen in annotated Figure A below), and wherein the at least one through slot (see Figure A) is a through slot extending substantially in a plane perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the rotor (as seen in Figure A, the through slots extend in a plane perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the rotor). Crabtree is silent regarding whether the at least one through slot is a through slot that extends over more than half a width of the input and/or the output of the motor, the width being measured in a circumferential direction of the drainage housing.However, it is well known in the art that the width of these through slots can be adjusted as required to meet certain flow requirements. For instance, in Figure 6, Maki discloses a similar pump wherein the drainage housing (cam liner 40, 42) have at least two through slots (36) both having a width that extends over more than half a width of the input (32) and/or the output (34) of the motor. Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidence cited by Maki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have changed the size of each through slot to extend over more than half a width of the input and/or the output of the motor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Doing so would also be obvious to try, in light of common knowledge in the art and the evidence cited by Maki, and would yield predictable results such as reducing the complexity of the drainage housing by reducing the number of through slots and also improving flow volume through the drainage housing.
PNG
media_image1.png
812
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the new grounds of rejection being used in the current office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights