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 .
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.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “about 90°” in lines 3 and 5. It is unclear how far off from 90° the angle can be before it would no longer be considered “about 90°”.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagopian (GB2166410).
Claim 1: Hagopian discloses a method of assembling a cover (7) to a housing (6), the method comprising: disposing a noncircular (implied at page 1, lines 13-15, 32-35, 103-104) plate (7) within a cavity at least partially defined by a noncircular lip (e.g. Fig. 4); rotating a roll-forming tool (10 – Fig. 4) about a longitudinal axis (about the vertical axis as indicated by the arrow in Fig. 4), the roll-forming tool including a central shaft (unlabeled but evident in Fig. 4) having the longitudinal axis, a first axle having a first lateral axis shown as the horizontal line) that extends substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (some form of an axle would is implied by the rotational attachment of the roller to the device), a second axle having a second lateral axis that extends substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (similar to the first), a first roller (one of 10) rotatably coupled to the first axle and adapted to rotate about the first lateral axis (implied as rollers), and a second roller (the other of 10) rotatably coupled to the second axle and adapted to rotate about the second lateral axis (similar to the first), the first roller and the second roller being radially positioned with respect to the longitudinal axis and circumferentially spaced with respect to each other (Fig. 4); while rotating the roll-forming tool (as shown by the arrow), engaging the first and second rollers with the noncircular lip, applying a load to the noncircular lip, the load being applied parallel to the longitudinal axis (page 1, lines 122-128); and continuing rotating the roll-forming tool about the longitudinal axis, the longitudinal axis remaining in a fixed position (implied in that it is shown in one position and not moving), wherein rotating the roll-forming tool causes the first and second rollers to concurrently operably engage the noncircular lip, deform the noncircular lip, and assemble the cover to the housing (as cited above).
With regard to the cover and housing being “of a pump”, it is noted that this pertains more to the intended use of the cover and housing without necessarily limiting their structure. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The cover and housing of Hagopian may theoretically be used for a pump if the requisite pump components were assembled thereto.
Claim 2: The noncircular lip engages the noncircular plate in a deformed configuration (the seam is deformed as shown and described).
Claim 3: Hagopian further discloses disposing a seal (9) within the cavity prior to disposing the noncircular plate within the cavity, wherein the noncircular plate engages the seal when the noncircular lip is in a deformed configuration (page 1, lines 33-35, 98-100, 110-11).
Claim 4: The seal comprises at least one of: room-temperature-vulcanizing (RTV) silicone, an O-ring, a seal-in-place gasket, and a noncircular-cross-section seal (the seal is a rubber composition having an at least noncircular cross-section either along or across its circumferential direction).
Claim 5: When the noncircular lip is in the deformed configuration, the noncircular plate encloses and hermetically seals a cavity of the pump (the assembly would serve this purpose as understood by the sealing function of the seal, again noting the assembly does not necessarily require any further aspects of a “pump”).
Claim 6: The noncircular lip at least partially defines an undeformed shape prior to the engaging the first and second rollers (“undeformed shape” can merely describe its shape prior to deformation by the rollers); in the undeformed shape, the noncircular lip includes an outer surface (radially outer surface), an inner surface (radially inner surface), and a top surface extending between the outer surface and the inner surface (upper end as in Fig. 4), the inner surface being closer to the longitudinal axis than the outer surface (as it is radially inward); and the top surface extends substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (it is “substantially perpendicular” at least at its apex point) and is adapted to engage the first and second rollers (as shown).
Claim 7: The outer surface forms a first angle with the top surface, the first angle being greater than 0° and less than or equal to about 90° (there is anywhere from a 0-90° angle sweeping from the outer surface to the top); and the inner surface forms a second angle with the top surface, the second angle being greater than 0° and less than or equal to about 90° (similar to with the outer surface), the second angle being greater than the first angle (the apex point defining the aforementioned “top surface” may be arbitrarily shifted slightly to the left while still being considered “substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis”, such that the second angle is also slightly greater than the first angle).
Claim 8: Hagopian implies maintaining a constant spacing between the first roller and the second roller during a complete revolution of the roll-forming tool, wherein the first axle, the second axle, the first roller and the second roller rotate together with the central shaft (in view of the fact that there is no description of the rollers specifically changing their relative radial spacing, it is implied they maintain that spacing).
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 4 and 7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagopian.
Claim 4: Hagopian mentions the seal is a rubber composition but is otherwise silent regarding whether it comprises at least one of: room-temperature-vulcanizing (RTV) silicone, an O-ring, a seal-in-place gasket. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any of the aforementioned seal materials since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 39, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the seal material.
Claim 7: Regarding the angles of the inner and outer surfaces with respect to the top surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the claimed angles since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 38, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the angles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
While Hagopian does not necessarily pertain to a pump per se, pumps having lipped and sealed non-circular cover-housing assemblies are known, for example as disclosed by U.S. PGPub 2019/0242291 (e.g. paragraph 38).
U.S. Patent 2,554,602 discloses a method of connecting a fan cowl via a similar rolling tool.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights