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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of July 30, 2016 which amended claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12, 14-17 and 23; claims 18-20 were previously canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Columbo et al (USPAP 2009/0191078) in view of Nachtrieb (USPN 4,057,375).
With regards to claims 9 and 12, Columbo et al teaches an assembly for a gear pump (see Fig. 1, 2, 5 & 6), comprising: a first gear (35) and a first rotor (33) mounted for rotation on a first shaft (37); and a second gear (36) and a second rotor (34) mounted for rotation on a second shaft (39), wherein the first shaft and the second shaft are configured to extend through a gear chamber (outlined in annotated Fig. 6 below) of the gear pump with the first gear, the first rotor, the second gear, and the second rotor contained in the gear chamber (Fig. 6 clearly shows both rotors and gears within the chamber), wherein, when installed in the gear chamber, the first gear is configured to intermesh (see Fig. 2) with the second gear, and wherein, when installed in the gear chamber, the first rotor is configured to intermesh (see Fig. 2) with the second rotor.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
n
Additionally, Columbo et al teach that the first rotor and the first gear, and the second rotor and the second gear, are separate elements. Also, as shown in the annotated Fig. 6 above and in the annotated Fig. 2 below, the first and the second rotors include rotor keyways and the first and second shafts include rotor key seats with a key coupling each rotor to the respective shaft via the keyways and the key seats.
PNG
media_image2.png
420
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Columbo et al do not disclose that the first and second gears are elements separate from the shafts and coupled to the shafts via respective keys, gear keyways and gear key seats; or that the first rotor key seat and the first gear key seat being positioned in a first angular orientation relative to each other, the second rotor key seat and the second gear key seat being positioned in a second angular orientation relative to each other that is different from the first angular orientation, and wherein the first angular orientation and the second angular orientation are configured such that, when the first gear intermeshes with the second gear, the first rotor is angularly aligned to intermesh with the second rotor.
Nachtrieb discloses a similar pump assembly having, as separate elements, first (18) and second (16) shafts; first (26) and second (22) rotors; and first (70) and second (68) gears. The first and second gears and the first and second rotors being coupled to the first and second shafts by pin mechanisms (96, K) extending through holes in the gears, rotors and shafts.
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make the gears of Colombo et al be separate elements from the shafts, as taught by Nachtrieb, so that gears can be replaced when they are worn or damaged. Additionally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177,179. Please note that in the instant application the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. As shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Nachtrieb above the first gear and the first rotor are connected to the first shaft via pin and hole arrangements where the pins (1st pins, labeled in annotated Fig. 2 above) are all in parallel (i.e., the coupling mechanisms have a first angular orientation of 0 degrees; the pins are all aligned with each other (claim 12)). As also shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Nachtrieb above the second gear and the second rotor are connected to the second shaft via pin and hole arrangements where the pins (2nd pins, labeled in annotated Fig. 2 above) in the gear are perpendicular to the pins in the second rotor (i.e., the coupling mechanisms have a second angular orientation of 90 degrees, the pins are offset from each other (claim 12)).
PNG
media_image3.png
401
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize key couplings as a well-known mechanism of connecting the gears to the shafts in Columbo et al as taught by the key couplings between the rotors and the shafts in the Columbo et al rotor connections. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to arrange the two sets of key couplings as taught by the equivalent pin couplings in Nachtrieb, since the operation of the pump is in no way dependent on the operation of the particular coupling arrangement and the selection of the coupling member angular orientations as taught by Nachtrieb would achieve the predictable result of properly orientating the pairs or gears and rotors on the first and second shafts so that they may engage during rotation. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
With regards to claim 13, Columbo et al teach the assembly of claim 9, as described above, wherein the first gear (35) is configured to drive rotation (note the drive connection 38 at the end of the first shaft 37) of the second gear, the second shaft, and the second rotor (since the gears and the rotors are fixedly mounted on the shafts and intermesh with each other either of the gears are configured to drive rotation of the other/second gear, the other/second shaft, and the other/second rotor).
With regards to claim 15, Columbo et al teach an assembly for a gear pump (the pump illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6), comprising: a first gear (35) and a first rotor (33) mounted for rotation on a first shaft (37); a second gear (36) and a second rotor (34) mounted for rotation on a second shaft (39); and a case extension (22, labeled in annotated Fig. 6 above) including an extended gear housing (labeled in annotated Fig. 6 above) that is configured to align with a gear chamber (labeled in annotated Fig. 6) of a main case (labeled in annotated Fig. 6) of the gear pump to form a combined chamber (labeled in annotated Fig. 6), wherein the first shaft and the second shaft are configured to extend through the combined chamber with the first gear, the first rotor, the second gear, and the second rotor contained in the combined chamber (clearly shown in Figs. 1 & 6), wherein, when installed in the combined chamber, the first gear is configured to intermesh with the second gear, and wherein, when installed in the combined chamber, the first rotor is configured to intermesh with the second rotor (See Fig. 2).
Columbo et al do not disclose that the first and second gears are elements separate from the shafts and coupled to the shafts via respective keys, gear keyways and gear key seats; or that the first rotor key seat and the first gear key seat being positioned in a first angular orientation relative to each other, the second rotor key seat and the second gear key seat being positioned in a second angular orientation relative to each other that is different from the first angular orientation, and wherein the first angular orientation and the second angular orientation are configured such that, when the first gear intermeshes with the second gear, the first rotor is angularly aligned to intermesh with the second rotor.
Nachtrieb discloses a similar pump assembly having, as separate elements, first (18) and second (16) shafts; first (26) and second (22) rotors; and first (70) and second (68) gears. The first and second gears and the first and second rotors being coupled to the first and second shafts by pin mechanisms (96, K) extending through holes in the gears, rotors and shafts.
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make the gears of Colombo et al be separate elements from the shafts, as taught by Nachtrieb, so that gears can be replaced when they are worn or damaged. Additionally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177,179. Please note that in the instant application the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. As shown in annotated Fig. 4 of Nachtrieb above the first gear and the first rotor are connected to the first shaft via pin and hole arrangements where the pins (1st pins, labeled in annotated Fig. 4 above) are all in parallel (i.e., the coupling mechanisms have a first angular orientation of 0 degrees). As also shown in annotated Fig. 4 of Nachtrieb above the second gear and the second rotor are connected to the second shaft via pin and hole arrangements where the pins (2nd pins, labeled in annotated Fig. 4 above) in the gears are perpendicular to the pins in the second rotor (i.e., the coupling mechanisms have a second angular orientation of 90 degrees).
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize key couplings as a well-known mechanism of connecting the gears to the shafts in Columbo et al as taught by the key couplings between the rotors and the shafts in the Columbo et al rotor connections. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to arrange the two sets of key couplings as taught by the equivalent pin couplings in Nachtrieb, since the operation of the pump is in no way dependent on the operation of the particular coupling arrangement and the selection of the coupling member angular orientations as taught by Nachtrieb would achieve the predictable result of properly orientating the pairs or gears and rotors on the first and second shafts so that they may engage during rotation. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
With regards to claim 16, Columbo et al in view of Nachtrieb teach the assembly of claim 15, as described above, Colombo et al further teaches a plate (24, shown in Fig. 1) positioned between the first gear and the first rotor and between the second gear and the second rotor, wherein the plate includes a set of holes (clearly shown in Fig. 1) through which the first shaft and the second shaft pass.
With regards to claim 17, Columbo et al in view of Nachtrieb teach the assembly of claim 15, as described above, further Colombo et al teach wherein first shaft (37) includes a drive end (38, see Fig. 1), and wherein the first rotor (33) is located between the first gear (35) and the drive end (38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9, 12, 13 and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights