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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 2nd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s response, but respectfully disagrees that Eberhardt fails to teach all the limitations of amended Claim 1.
Specifically, Applicant argues “[t]he insert 90 of Eberhardt is not a flow restrictor, as required by the present claims. Furthermore, the insert 90 of Eberhardt is a removable, movable part, not a defined portion of the pump housing extending into a fluid path of a raised volute. Additionally, the volute insert 90 of Eberhardt does not have one or more rounded surfaces which decrease and angle between outer intersecting surfaces within the raised volute, as required by amended claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that a flow restrictor is simply a structure that restricts flow in some capacity, which the insert of Eberhardt does (e.g. it restricts flow to the confines of the volute). Examiner further notes that the insert #90 is an extension of the volute rear wall (Col. 5, lines 8-11), which Examiner considers to be a portion of the pump housing extending into the fluid path. Examiner notes that nowhere in Claim 1 is a limitation that prevents the flow restrictor from being moveable or removeable. Lastly, Examiner maintains that the insert #90 of Eberhardt does include a rounded surface as claimed (Figs. 4,5,9 - rounded corner at the tip of insert as rounded surface). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
The rejection of Claim 1 has been corrected under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “fluid advancer” should be corrected to “flow advancer” in order to match the wording in line 2 and in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eberhardt (US 3499388).
Regarding Claim 1, Eberhardt discloses an improved flow parallel flow pump comprising:
a pump housing (Figs. 1-3 #12 – pump casing as housing), wherein the pump housing comprises a pump inlet and a pump outlet (Fig. 3 #14,16 – inlet port and discharge port as pump inlet and pump outlet, respectively),
and wherein the pump inlet is fixedly attached to a first end of the pump housing (Fig. 3),
and wherein the pump outlet is fixedly attached to a second end of the pump housing (Fig. 3);
a raised volute (Col. 3, lines 62-65; Col. 4, lines 62-68; Fig. 3 #40 – discharge side of interior of pump housing with discharge volute chamber as raised volute), wherein the raised volute extends from the pump outlet to a cylindrical passage (Col. 3, lines 66-69; Figs. 3,4 #46 – circular opening forms cylindrical passage), wherein the cylindrical passage extends from the raised volute to an intake chamber (Col. 3, lines 62-65; Fig. 3 #38 – intake side of interior of pump housing as intake chamber), and wherein the intake chamber extends from the cylindrical passage to the pump inlet (Fig. 3);
wherein the pump housing defines a flow restrictor which extends into a fluid flow path of the raised volute (Figs. 3,5,9 #90 – volute insert/ tongue as flow restrictor);
wherein said flow restrictor comprises one or more angled surfaces and one or more rounded surfaces configured to decrease an angle between outer intersecting surfaces within the raised volute (Figs. 3,5,9 #90 – volute insert/ tongue as flow restrictor, with angled surface in the form of lip #92, and rounded surface at the tip).
Regarding Claim 10, Eberhart discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Eberhardt further discloses wherein the one or more rounded surfaces are further configured for increasing an angle between inner intersecting surfaces within the raised volute (Figs. 3,5,9 #90 – volute insert/ tongue as flow restrictor, with angled surface in the form of lip #92, and rounded surface at the tip).
Regarding Claim 11, Eberhart discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Eberhardt further discloses wherein: the pump housing further defines a flow advancer between the intake chamber and the cylindrical passage (Vol. 4, lines 13-19; Figs. 3,7 #66 – inner surface of passageway formed by wall #62 as flow advancer); and
wherein the fluid advancer comprises a rounded surface configured to reduce fluid flow resistance as fluid passes from the intake chamber into the cylindrical passage (Figs. 3,7).
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.
Claims 9 and 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhardt (US 3499388) in view of Dong et al., hereafter Dong (CN 109958659).
Regarding Claim 9, Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
However, Eberhardt fails to teach a plurality of turning vanes.
Dong teaches a parallel flow pump that includes a plurality of turning vanes (page 3, paragraphs 1,4; Fig. 1 #2 – flow guide blades as turning vanes), in order to reduce unstable pump outlet end flow thus reducing turbulence, cavitation, and noise (page 4, paragraph 3). Eberhardt and Dong are analogous prior art as they each relate to parallel flow pumps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pump taught by Eberhardt with the turning vanes taught by Dong, in order to reduce unstable pump outlet end flow thus reducing turbulence, cavitation, and noise (Dong page 4, paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Eberhardt as modified by Dong teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 above. Eberhardt as modified by Dong further teaches wherein the plurality of turning vanes are positioned within an interior area of the pump housing (Dong Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Eberhardt as modified by Dong teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 above. Eberhardt as modified by Dong further teaches the plurality of turning vanes are disposed within the raised volute (Dong page 3, paragraph 1 and Fig. 1 – the vanes are disposed within the diffusion section, which in Eberhardt is within the raised volute (see Fig. 3)).
Regarding Claim 4, Eberhardt as modified by Dong teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 above. Eberhardt as modified by Dong further teaches wherein the plurality of turning vanes comprising:
an elongated body (Dong page 3, paragraphs 1-3; Figs. 1,4);
a leading edge, wherein the leading edge is disposed within the raised volute (Dong page 3, paragraphs 1-3; Figs. 1,4); and
a trailing edge, wherein the trailing edge is positioned at the pump outlet (Dong page 3, paragraphs 1-3; Figs. 1,4).
Regarding Claim 5, Eberhardt as modified by Dong teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 above. Eberhardt as modified by Dong further teaches wherein the plurality of turning vanes are positioned such that the plurality of turning vanes comprise a plurality of fluid paths (Dong page 3, paragraph 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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 WIEHE can be reached at (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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights