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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on March 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 27, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The German reference DE 20 2010 011 333 U1 was submitted and the Espacenet filing of the Bibliographic data for DE ‘333 was also filed but the Espacenet filing notes that the “english language” Abstract was not available. Therefore, the DE ‘333 reference was not considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “after a set of gears” “, (embodying or representing) the second set of gears,” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 21-24 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 is vague and indefinite because they set forth a “pump” in the preamble of the claims but the body of the claims only set forth the various parts of the pump with their dimensions and capabilities without actually setting forth the parts being assembled to one another as a pump. Therefore, it is unclear if an assembled pump is being claimed or a kit/collection of pump parts that could be assembled together as a pump is being claimed. Based on the claim language, minus the preamble, the claims will be considered as if a pump kit is being claimed.
Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Trossmann et al (USPAP 2018/035564.
With regards to claim 1, Trossmann et al disclose a pump (see title, see Figs. 7 and 8), comprising: a main case (4) having a first chamber (labeled in the annotated Figs. 7 & 8 below) configured to receive a first set of gears (Fig. 7 shows the chamber holding helical gears and therefore the first chamber is configured to receive a pair of gears) of a first axial length (labeled in annotated Fig. 7); a faceplate assembly (labeled in the annotated Figs. 7 & 8 below); a backplate assembly (labeled in the annotated Figs. 7 & 8 below); and a case extension (6) removably attached between the main case and the faceplate assembly (Fig. 8), wherein the case extension includes a second chamber (labeled in annotated Fig. 8) that aligns with the first chamber to form a continuous combined chamber, and wherein the combined chamber is configured to receive a second set of gears (Fig. 8 shows the chamber holding helical gears and therefore the first chamber is configured to receive a pair of gears) of a second axial length (labeled in annotated Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Trossmann et al disclose the pump of claim 1, wherein the pump is configured to operate with the first set of gears and without the case extension to provide a first maximum volumetric displacement (the volumetric displacement of Fig. 7), and wherein the pump is configured to operate with the second set of gears and with the case extension to provide a second maximum volumetric displacement (the volumetric displacement of Fig. 8, the volumetric displacement of Figs. 7 and 8 may be the same).
With regards to claim 6, Trossmann et al disclose the pump of claim 1, further comprising: a set of gears (the pair of gears where each gear is represented by a combined shaft 5,7), (representing or embodying) the second set of gears, configured to extend axially the substantial length (i.e., the 2nd axial length labeled in annotated Fig. 8) of the continuous combined chamber.
With regards to claims 8 and 9, Trossmann et al disclose the pump of claim 1, and clearly shows the second set of gears being helically oriented teeth (claim 9) and because the combined chamber is configured to hold the rotating helical gears it is also configured to hold a second set of gears having straight spur teeth (claim 8).
With regards to claim 10, Trossmann et al disclose the pump of claim 1, a cross-sectional shape of the first chamber and a cross-sectional shape of the second chamber are identical (see Fig. 8 and the exploded view of analogous embodiment Fig. 4).
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) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Trossmann et al.
With regards to claim 11, Trossmann et al disclose a modular expansion assembly for a gear pump (see title), comprising: a case extension (labeled in annotated Fig. 8 above) removably attached between a main case (labeled in annotated Fig. 8 above) of the gear pump and a faceplate assembly (labeled in annotated Fig. 8 above) of the gear pump, wherein the case extension includes a second chamber (labeled in annotated Fig. 8 above) that aligns with a first chamber (labeled in annotated Fig. 8 above) of the main case to form a continuous combined chamber; a set of gears (clearly shown in Fig. 8) configured to extend axially the substantial length (the second axial length labeled in annotated Fig. 8) of the continuous combined chamber; and a set of shafts configured to extend through the continuous combined chamber into bores of the faceplate assembly and bores of a backplate assembly of the gear pump.
With regards to claim 16, the gears of Trossmann et al have helically oriented teeth.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 11, 16 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trossmann et al in view of Long (USPN 1,751,703).
With regards to claims 3, 5, 7 and 23, as set forth above, Trossmann et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed but do not disclose wherein the faceplate assembly and backplate assembly are configured to: support a first set of shafts for rotating the first set of gears, and support a second set of shafts for rotating the second set of gears (claim 3) in bores of the faceplate assembly and the backplate assembly (claim 7) or disclose a first gasket between the case extension and the faceplate assembly, and a second gasket between the case extension and the faceplate assembly (claim 5) or the gasket is compressible and has an interior opening that conforms to a cross-sectional shape of the continuous combined chamber (claim 23).
Wiuth regards to claims 3 and 7, Long discloses a similar pump having a main case (10) holding a set of helical gears (21, 21) and having a faceplate assembly (16) and a backplate assembly (12), wherein the faceplate assembly and backplate assembly are configured to: support a first set of shafts for rotating the first set of gears, and support a second set of shafts for rotating the second set of gears (as shown in Fig. 2 the plate assemblies are rotatably supporting shafts 30, 31, 38, 39, in bores as labeled in annotated Fig. 2 below and thus are configured to any pair of shafts, such as the first and the second pair of shafts).
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 rotatably support the pair of shafts within bores of the faceplate and the backplate, as taught by Long, instead of rotatably supporting the pair of shafts in the main case and the case extension as taught by Trossmann et al since both shaft supporting arrangements are recognized as equivalence for their use in the art of rotatably supporting a pair of shafts and selection of either of these known equivalents to provide a pair of rotating gears on a pair of shafts would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
With regards to claim 5 Long further discloses a first gasket and a second gasket as shown in the annotated Fig. 2 below and with regards to claim 23 Fig. 2 of Long clearly shows the gaskets having an interior opening that conforms to a cross-sectional shape of the continuous combined chamber, i.e., the rotating gear chamber defined by the inner surface of casing 11.
PNG
media_image2.png
425
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first gasket and a second gasket as taught by Long in order to properly seal the mating faces between the various pump components.
With regards to claim 23 as shown and described above Trossmann et al in view of Long discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the gaskets are compressible. The Examiner gives official notice that gaskets are commonly made of compressible material and that at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the gaskets of Long of a compressible material to conform to any deviations of the flange surfaces and effectively seal the mating surfaces. Further, 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, 125 USPQ 416.
With regards to claims 11 and 16, Trossmann et al in view of Long discloses the modular gear pump as set forth in the rejection of claims 3 and 7 above. Trossmann et al in view of Long do not describe that the gears and shafts are replacement elements. These limitations, i.e., “replacement”, could be considered as non-limiting since no original gears or shafts have been positively claimed. Alternatively, the examiner gives official notice that it is common to provide replacement parts for machinery and it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the original gears and shafts with replacement gears and shafts once the original gears and shafts have run for their expected lifetime during use of the pump in order to maintain pumping efficiency.
Claim(s) 4, 12-15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trossmann et al in view of Long as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mayer et al (USPAP 2007/0248480).
As set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 11 above, Trossmann et al in the embodiment of Figs. 7 & 8 show bolts 19 & 25 extending through at least portions of the various casing portions and into bolt holes of adjacent casing portions but do not show the bolts extending into faceplate bolt holes or the use of alignment pins and index holes between the case extension and the main extension, as detailed in claims 4, 12-15 and 21.
Mayer et al discloses a similar expandable modular gear pump (see Fig. 9) having main casing and extension casing portions 18 having aligned through holes extending through a faceplate assembly and into a backplate assembly. Additionally, there are a plurality of bolts (44) that extend through the faceplate assembly, the main casing and the extension casings and into bolts holes of the backplate assembly. There are also pins (46) that are received in alignment holes between the casing portions.
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 aligned bolt holes and single bolts extending through the front plate and backplate assemblies, the main casing and the extension casing, as taught by Mayer et al, instead of using multiple bolts between each plate and casing section as taught by Trossmann et al since each bolt connection arrangement is recognized as equivalent for their use in the art of connecting pump housing components together and selection of either of these known equivalents to construct the pump of Trossmann et al in view of Long would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further, the use of single bolts as taught by Mayer et al to connect multiple sections would provide a reduced number of parts.
Further, it would have been obvious to utilize alignment pins as taught by Mayer et al in the Trossmann et al in view of Long modular pump in order to ensure proper alignment of the successive pump modules so that the gears and shafts are properly aligned with the first, second and combined chambers and excessive wear does not occur.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trossmann et al in view of Long as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Einfalt (USPAP 2020/0362860).
As set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 7 above, Trossmann et al in view of Long disclose the invention substantially as claimed and Long additionally discloses the backplate assembly having a bearing supporting the shafts but does not disclose the faceplate assembly bores having bearings. Further, neither Trossmann et al nor Long teach of the main case, the faceplate assembly, the backplate assembly, and the case extension are each formed from cast iron.
Einfalt discloses a multi-gear pump assembly (see Fig. 8) where there are bearings (100, 104, 112, 118) in both the backplate and the faceplate assemblies and disclose that the casing portions 12a & 12b are made of cast iron (see paragraph [0035]).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to also provide bearings in the backplate assembly of Trossmann et al in view of Long in order to extend the useful life of the pump. Further, it would have been obvious to make the housing components of Trossmann et al in view of Long of cast iron as disclosed by Einfalt since cast iron is a well-known and relatively cheap material that would result in a durable gear pump. Additionally, 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Briere, Simonelli et al, Bhagavatula and Albright et al disclose gear pump assemblies.
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
May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights