DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application with claims 19 and 20 being withdrawn. The amendment to the claims has overcome claim objection set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed November 4, 2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s request, with respect to the double patenting rejection to be held in abeyance until all pending claims are allowed, is hereby acknowledged.
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 1 – 13 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the mounting lug is configured to be secured to a jackscrew lug such that the mounting lug is in contact with a first surface of the first planar section facing toward the cavity and the jackscrew lug is in contact with a second surface of the first planar section facing away from the cavity” in lines 10-13. The phrase “the jackscrew lug is in contact with a second surface of the first planar section facing away from the cavity” makes the claim indefinite. In view of filed specification (see figs. 3, 5, 6 and ¶25, ¶26, ¶38 in pg. pub of the instant application), jackscrew lug (140) has jackscrew hole (144) and pair of holes (146). The jackscrew (142) is inserted into the jackscrew hole for being coupled to feet (22) of the motor assembly (20) and the mounting screws (148) are inserted into the pair of holes so that they pass through slot (128) in vertical planar section (126; claimed as “second planar section” in the claim) for being coupled to the mounting lug (160). The horizontal planar section (130; claimed as “first planar section” in the claim) has top and bottom surfaces, wherein the bottom surface faces the claimed “cavity”. Thus, it is unclear as to how the jackscrew lug is in contact with a second surface (considered to be the top surface) of the first planar section (130) facing away from the cavity. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the jackscrew lug is rather in contact with a second surface of the second planar section (126). For examination purposes the claim is examined as best understood by the examiner and it is thus suggested to recite the above limitation as --wherein the mounting lug is configured to be secured to a jackscrew lug such that the mounting lug is in contact with a first surface of the first planar section facing toward the cavity and the jackscrew lug is in contact with a second surface of the second planar section facing away from the cavity--.
Claims 2 – 13 are rejected for being dependent on claim 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US 2015/0093266 – herein after Nelson; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025) in view of Copanas et al. (US 10,465,836 – herein after Copanas; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025) and further in view of Pierjok et al. (US 7,338,400 – herein after Pierjok).
In reference to claim 1, Nelson teaches a base plate system (100, in fig. 1), comprising:
a base plate (104+102, in fig. 1) configured to support a pump bearing frame (frame/housing corresponding to pump assembly 210 in view of figs. 3, 5, 7) [holes 118 are capable of being aligned with the asserted pump bearing frame] and a motor adaptor [holes 134 are capable of receiving a motor adapter].
Nelson does not teach claimed details related to a motor adaptor.
However, Copanas teaches a base plate system, comprising:
a base plate configured to support a motor adaptor (shown in fig. 2) [col. 4, line 67 to col. 5, lines 1-4: “The bottom portion 28 is generally planar and has a plurality of through holes 32 respectively receiving a plurality of fastener components (not shown) for anchoring the flange 22 to the fixed base, such as the floor”; thus, base plate = fixed base];
the motor adaptor configured to support a motor assembly (18, see fig. 1), the motor adaptor including:
a first planar section (surface 30) with a first slot (34/36),
a second planar section (surface 24), and
a flange (28) configured to be secured to the base plate (fixed base), wherein the first planar section and the second planar section form a cavity (as seen in fig. 2) between the base plate (fixed base) and the first planar section (surface 30) when the motor adaptor is secured to the base plate; and
a mounting lug (16) slidably disposed within the cavity, the mounting lug configured to receive a hold-down bolt (20) extending through the first slot (34/36), wherein the mounting lug (16) is configured to be secured such that the mounting lug is in contact with a first surface (bottom surface, see fig. 2) of the first planar section (30) facing (in ↓ direction, see fig. 2) toward the cavity, and
wherein the motor adaptor and the mounting lug collectively configured to support a weight of the motor assembly (18).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the motor adaptor as taught by Copanas for supporting Nelson’s motor since Copanas’s motor adaptor allows for adjusting a position of a motor, as recognized by Copanas (see col. 1, lines 14-16).
Nelson, as modified, remains silent on the base plate system, wherein the mounting lug is configured to be secured to a jackscrew lug such that the jackscrew lug is in contact with a second surface of the second planar section facing away from the cavity (it is to be noted that phrases “mounting” and “jackscrew” are functional prefixes in the limitations “mounting lug” and “jackscrew lug”).
However, Pierjok teaches a system wherein (see fig. 5; for frame of reference: rotate fig. 5 clockwise by 90°) a first lug (44; equivalent to mounting lug) is configured to be secured to a second lug (48; equivalent to jackscrew lug) such that the second lug is in contact with a surface (outer wall surface) of a planar section (30; equivalent to second planar section) facing away (in ← direction) from a cavity (space within 20).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the dual-sided clamping configuration as taught by Pierjok on a second surface of the second planar section in the modified system of Nelson for the purpose of structurally reinforcing a planar portion between the two lugs, as recognized by Pierjok (see col. 15, lines 4-9). The proposed modification is viewed as modifying the physical geometry of asserted Copanas’s mounting lug (16) – which natively features a clearance gap (72) – by extending its width or adding a contact flange across the gap so that it directly interfaces with the interior surface of the second planar section (24). Concurrently, an external structural bracket (i.e. bracket with three fastening holes, see bracket 48 in Pierjok’s fig. 5; wherein in the bracket, one of the holes corresponds to Copanas fastener 40 and other two holes corresponds to fasteners 54) would be introduced on the outside of the second planar section (24). A sliding clearance slot would be provided to allow loose fasteners to loosely connect the internal lug and external lug during translation. The core sliding principle of operation of Copanas is fully preserved since the integrated assembly moves smoothly as a single unit with the cavity until it is securely torqued into a rigid, clamped state upon final positioning.
Thus, Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system, wherein the mounting lug (modified 16; of Copanas) is configured to be secured to a jackscrew lug (40; of Copanas) such that the mounting lug is in contact with a first surface (bottom surface) of the first planar section (30; of Copanas) facing toward the cavity (of Copanas) and the jackscrew lug (48; of Pierjok) is in contact with a second surface (vertical surface) of the second planar section (24; of Copanas) facing away from the cavity.
In reference to claim 5, Nelson teaches the base plate system, wherein the base plate is configurable to receive differently sized motor adaptors (the asserted base plate of Nelson is capable of receiving differently sized motor adaptors).
In reference to claim 6, Nelson teaches the base plate system, wherein the base plate is configurable to receive differently sized pump bearing frames (the asserted base plate of Nelson is capable of receiving differently sized pump bearing frames).
In reference to claim 7, Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system, wherein (in view of proposed modification discussed above in claim 1) the motor adaptor further includes a third slot (slot corresponding to fastener 54 in planar section 30; see Pierjok’s fig. 5) in the second planar section (surface 24; of Copanas), and wherein the mounting lug (modified mounting lug 16; of Copanas) is configured to receive a fastener (54; of Pierjok) extending through the third slot to secure the jackscrew lug (lug such as 48 provided using the teaching of Pierjok) to the mounting lug (16; of Copanas).
In reference to claim 8, Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system, wherein (in view of proposed modification discussed above in claim 1) the jackscrew lug (lug such as 48 provided using the teaching of Pierjok) is further configured to receive a jackscrew (40; of Copanas) directed toward the motor assembly (18, see Copanas fig. 1) [rotate Copanas fig. 1 clockwise by 90°: jackscrew 40 is directed toward the motor 26 in → direction], when the jackscrew lug (40) is secured to the mounting lug (modified mounting lug 16; of Copanas).
In reference to claim 9, Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system (see Copanas), wherein (see fig. 2) the second planar section (surface 24) is substantially perpendicular to the first planar section (surface 30).
In reference to claim 10, Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system (see Copanas), wherein (see figs. 1-2) the first planar section (surface 30) of the motor adaptor includes multiple first slots (34, 36) configured to align with holes of multiple different motor assembly feet sizes (the asserted first slots are capable of aligning with holes of multiple different motor assembly feet sizes).
In reference to claim 11, Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system (see Copanas: figs. 1-2), wherein the flange (28) is parallel to the first planar section (surface 30).
In reference to claim 12, Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system (see Copanas), wherein the motor adaptor (see figs. 1-2) configured to support the motor assembly (18) includes at least two identical motor adaptors (each motor adaptor = component with features 30, 28 & component with feature 24).
In reference to claim 13, Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system (see Copanas), wherein the first planar section (surface 30) and the second planar section (surface 24) are formed from a same steel plate [In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “are formed from a same steel plate” has not been given patentable weight].
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Copanas and further in view of Pierjok and LaBarge, III, William E. (US 2009/0264209 – herein after LaBarge; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025).
Regarding claim 2,
Nelson teaches the base plate system with a coupling (206) between the motor assembly (202) and the pump bearing frame (210).
Nelson does not teach the base plate system with a coupling guard.
However, LaBarge teaches a coupling guard (20) configured to fit over a coupling (15) between the motor assembly (16) and the pump bearing frame (17), wherein the coupling guard includes multiple overlapping panels (21, 23 or 22, 24 or 21-24,44+50) configured for adjusting a length of the coupling guard (in view of disclosure in col. 4, lines 1-17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base plate in the base plate system of Nelson for provision of a coupling guard as taught by LaBarge for providing “a coupling guard that covers all sides of a power coupling, and that is telescopingly adjustable in length and also adjustable in height”, as recognized by LaBarge (see ¶11). Furthermore, as recognized by LaBarge (in ¶3), “Guards are often used to cover coupling joints in order to prevent accidental contact with fast rotating coupling joints”.
Regarding claim 3,
Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system, wherein each of the multiple overlapping panels (21-24,44+50; see figs. 1-2 of LaBarge) includes a base flange (42, see fig. 2) with second slots (labeled “s2”; see fig. A below) and wherein the second slots are configured to align with mounting holes (in the modified base plate system) in the base plate (of Nelson) and receive threaded fasteners (labeled “F”; see fig. A below) therethrough.
PNG
media_image1.png
696
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 2 of LaBarge to show claim interpretation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Copanas and further in view of Pierjok, LaBarge and Powell, Jack Joseph (US 6,190,261 – herein after Powell; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025)
Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system, wherein each of the multiple overlapping panels (21, 23 or 22, 24; see LaBarge’s fig. 1A) includes a side wall (50/44), wherein the side wall extends up from the base plate (of Nelson).
Nelson, as modified, remains silent on the base plate system, wherein each of the multiple overlapping panels includes a vented portion, and wherein the vented portion is located above the coupling when the coupling guard is installed between the motor assembly and the pump bearing frame.
However, Powell teaches the coupling guard (20, in fig. 5) includes multiple overlapping panels (30, 40) with vented portions (28) [see col. 4, lines 9-10: “Additionally, the first guard portion 30 and the second guard portion 40 include ventilation ports 28 formed therein”], and wherein the vented portion (28 in panel 30) is located above (in view of figs. 1, 2, 5) the coupling (18) when the coupling guard (20) is installed between the motor assembly (12) and the pump bearing frame (14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide vented portions as taught by Powell on multiple overlapping panels of the coupling guard in the modified base plate system of Nelson for the purpose of temperature control since couplings generate heat during operation, especially under high loads.
Claims 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US 2015/0093266 – herein after Nelson; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025) in view of Copanas et al. (US 10,465,836 – herein after Copanas; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025).
In reference to claim 14, Nelson teaches a base plate system (100, in fig. 1), comprising:
a base plate (104+102, in fig. 1) configured to support a pump bearing frame (frame/housing corresponding to pump assembly 210 in view of figs. 3, 5, 7) [holes 118 are capable of being aligned with the asserted pump bearing frame] and a motor adaptor [holes 134 are capable of receiving a motor adapter],
wherein the base plate (104+102) includes a top planar section (see fig. 1; section with features such as 104, 114) that is configured to receive bolted connections (in holes 118, 134; see figs. 1-2) to secure a bottom surface of the pump bearing frame and a bottom surface of the motor adaptor to the base plate to enable axial alignment of a motor assembly drive and the pump bearing frame (base plate is capable of having these claimed features; see ¶15 and figs. 5-7),
wherein the base plate (104+102) is configured to receive the bolted connections for the motor adaptor in multiple different locations along a length of the base plate (holes 134 are capable of receiving a motor adapter in fig. 1; the provision of these holes 134 allows the base to have the claimed capability of receiving the bolted connections for the motor adaptor in multiple different locations along a length of the base plate).
Nelson does not teach claimed details related to a motor adaptor.
However, Copanas teaches a base plate system, comprising:
a base plate configured to support a motor adaptor (shown in fig. 2) [col. 4, line 67 to col. 5, lines 1-4: “The bottom portion 28 is generally planar and has a plurality of through holes 32 respectively receiving a plurality of fastener components (not shown) for anchoring the flange 22 to the fixed base, such as the floor”; thus, base plate = fixed base];
the motor adaptor configured to support a motor assembly (18, see fig. 1), the motor adaptor including:
a first planar section (surface 30) with a first set of slots (34, 36) to receive bolted connections (20) for the motor assembly (18),
a second planar section (surface 24) that is substantially perpendicular to the first planar section (see fig. 2), and
a flange (28) configured to be secured to the base plate (fixed base), wherein the first planar section and the second planar section form a cavity (as seen in fig. 2) between the base plate (fixed base) and the first planar section (surface 30) when the motor adaptor is secured to the base plate;
wherein the motor adaptor supports weight of the motor assembly (18).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the motor adaptor as taught by Copanas for supporting Nelson’s motor since Copanas’s motor adaptor allows for adjusting a position of a motor, as recognized by Copanas (see col. 1, lines 14-16).
In reference to claim 17, Nelson teaches the base plate system, wherein the base plate is configurable to receive differently sized motor adaptors (the asserted base plate of Nelson is capable of receiving differently sized motor adaptors).
In reference to claim 18, Nelson teaches the base plate system, wherein the base plate is configurable to receive differently sized pump bearing frames (the asserted base plate of Nelson is capable of receiving differently sized pump bearing frames).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Copanas and LaBarge, III, William E. (US 2009/0264209 – herein after LaBarge; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025).
Regarding claim 15,
Nelson teaches the base plate system with a coupling (206) between the motor assembly (202) and the pump bearing frame (210).
Nelson does not teach the base plate system with a coupling guard.
However, LaBarge teaches a coupling guard (20) configured to fit over a coupling (15) between the motor assembly (16) and the pump bearing frame (17), wherein the coupling guard includes multiple overlapping panels (21, 23 or 22, 24 or 21-24,44+50) configured for adjusting a length of the coupling guard (in view of disclosure in col. 4, lines 1-17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base plate in the base plate system of Nelson for provision of a coupling guard as taught by LaBarge for providing “a coupling guard that covers all sides of a power coupling, and that is telescopingly adjustable in length and also adjustable in height”, as recognized by LaBarge (see ¶11). Furthermore, as recognized by LaBarge (in ¶3), “Guards are often used to cover coupling joints in order to prevent accidental contact with fast rotating coupling joints”.
Regarding claim 16,
Nelson, as modified, teaches the base plate system, wherein each of the multiple overlapping panels (21-24,44+50; see figs. 1-2 of LaBarge) includes a base flange (42, see fig. 2) with second slots (labeled “s2”; see fig. A above) and wherein the second slots are configured to align with mounting holes (in the modified base plate system) in the base plate (of Nelson) and receive threaded fasteners (labeled “F”; see fig. A above) therethrough.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot.
The amendment to independent claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied to this claim, in view of newly found reference of Pierjok.
The amendment to independent claim 14 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the previously cited prior arts have been re-evaluated and applied to this claim. A new ground of rejection is presented over Nelson and Copanas. It is to be noted that applicant merely states “LaBarge, Nelson, Copanas, Powell, and Kritzer, taken alone or properly combined, fail to teach or suggest the above-noted features. Nor did the Action rely on any of LaBarge, Nelson, Copanas, Powell, and Kritzer to teach or suggest the above-noted features”. No arguments have been presented over combination of Nelson and Copanas for independent claim 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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 at 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights