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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, line 22 through page 9, line 9, filed April 29, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2,921,533 to Williams. Williams teaches a pump comprising a piping infrastructure which draws the working fluid into a pump chamber.
Regarding Caleb, the applicant has argued, see page 9, lines 16-28, that the cited references teach away from the claimed circulation pump because their disclosures being submersible pumps. While Caleb refers to the pump being a submersible pump, this does not constitute teaching away from using the pump in a circulation pump. Merely having a preference for one environment where the pump is used does not teach away from using it in other environments. In this case, a piping infrastructure could be added to the inlet of the pump chamber, and rotation of the pump rotor would create suction which draws in the working fluid through the piping infrastructure.
The applicant's arguments, see page 9, line 29 through page 10, line 21, have been considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argued that the prior art fails to teach first and second hydrodynamic bearings. Caleb fails to teach the claimed bearings. Upon further search and consideration, a new rejection will be put forth in view of US 2,921,533 to Williams. Williams teaches first and second hydrodynamic bearings around the shaft assembly and comprising a shaft passage and a shaft groove forming a flow path between the first and second bearings.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cooling component” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The generic, non-structural term “component” is defined by the function of “cooling” and is not defined by the structure capable of performing the function. Therefore, the “cooling component” meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f).
Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, paragraph 81 describes a “cooling component 1000” which has a generally cylindrical shaped body which “may be colored black, via a coating or material selection”. Figures 11 and 12 show a generally cylindrically shaped body which surrounds the shaft – akin to a sleeve – and has passages for a cooling fluid. Accordingly, the “cooling component” will be treated as a sleeve having passages for cooling fluid and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb et al, published June 11, 2021 and in view of US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and in further view of US 2,921,533 to Williams.
In Reference to Claim 1
Caleb teaches:
A method of moving a liquid material (molten silicon, see abstract) via a pump (pump, see Figure 3), the pump comprising an impeller (not numbered, see annotated Figure 3 below), a shaft assembly (insulating shaft in Figure 3), and a pump chamber (not numbered, space occupied by "pump", see annotated Figure 3 below), the method comprising:
pumping the liquid by rotating the impeller, wherein:
the impeller is attached to and rotated by the shaft assembly,
the liquid material is at a temperature between 1000-3000 degrees C (1800 degrees C to 2080 degrees C, abstract lines 10-11),
the pump comprises an inlet (bottom of pump chamber) and an outlet (see annotated Figure 3), both fluidically coupled to the pump chamber such that the impeller causes a pressure difference between the inlet and the outlet, thereby causing circulation of the liquid material.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Caleb fails to teach:
The pump is a circulation pump which pumps the liquid material through a piping infrastructure, the inlet and outlet are fluidically coupled to the piping infrastructure, the inlet is connected to the piping infrastructure such that the pressure difference draws the liquid material from the piping infrastructure to the inlet, the circulation pump comprises a first bearing and a second bearing, both surrounding the shaft assembly, and the shaft assembly comprises a shaft passage and a shaft groove forming a flow path between the first bearing and the second bearing for the liquid material, pressurized by the impeller in the pump chamber, to flow through the flow path, thereby providing hydrodynamic lubrication between the shaft assembly and each of the first bearing and the second bearing; and radiatively cooling the shaft assembly by surrounding a region of the shaft assembly with a cooling component that is cooled externally.
Ruthman teaches:
A method of operating a pump (molten metal pump, see column 1, lines 1-4) comprising:
radiatively cooling a shaft assembly (16) by surrounding a region (portion of the shaft within the water jacket 67) of the shaft assembly with a cooling component (water jacket 67) that is cooled externally (via water from pipe 70) (see column 4, lines 7-29 and Figure 11).
Figure 11 shows the water jacket adjacent to the shaft. The water jacket is a stationary component which is bound by bolts (35), while the shaft rotates on bearings (34). Accordingly, the water jacket is spaced from the shaft to allow the rotation to occur. While Ruthman does not explicitly describe the water jacket as radiatively cooling the shaft, the water jacket is spaced from the shaft and would necessarily absorb at least some thermal radiation from the shaft.
The water jacket surrounds the shaft and has a passage for a cooling fluid (water). Therefore, the examiner considers the water jacket to be a “cooling component” which radiatively cools the shaft assembly.
Williams teaches:
A circulation pump (10) comprising a piping infrastructure (pipe below 11 in Figure 1), an inlet (11) and an outlet (12), an impeller (14), the inlet and outlet are fluidically coupled to the piping infrastructure, the inlet is connected to the piping infrastructure such that a pressure difference draws the liquid material from the piping infrastructure to the inlet, the circulation pump comprises a first bearing (21) and a second bearing (23), both surrounding the shaft assembly, and the shaft assembly comprises a shaft passage (25) and a shaft groove (26) forming a flow path between the first bearing and the second bearing for the liquid material, pressurized by the impeller in the pump chamber, to flow through the flow path, thereby providing hydrodynamic lubrication between the shaft assembly and each of the first bearing and the second bearing (see column 2, lines 7-67 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb by radiatively cooling the shaft using a cooling component which is externally cooled as taught by Ruthman as both references are directed to molten metal pumps, and for the purpose of further cooling the shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb by forming the pump as a circulation pump by adding a piping infrastructure to the inlet of the pump chamber and adding a first bearing, a second bearing, a shaft passage, and a shaft groove as taught by Williams for the purpose of further allowing the suction of the pump to draw the working fluid into the pump chamber and for the purpose of supporting the shaft assembly using the bearings at different positions on the shaft.
When adding the piping infrastructure of Williams to the pump of Caleb, the pump will draw the liquid material through the inlet via the piping infrastructure. The examiner considers the pump to be a circulation pump under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In Reference to Claim 4
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein
each of the first bearing and the second bearing has a diameter larger than a diameter of the shaft assembly, such that each of the first bearing and the second bearing is separated from the shaft assembly, thereby eliminating or at least reducing surface-to-surface contact between each of the first bearing and the second bearing and the shaft assembly and providing hydrodynamic lubrication between the one or more bearings and the shaft assembly. Williams teaches the first and second bearings are hydrodynamic bearings, which have diameters larger than the shaft assembly to create the space for the working fluid to flow along the shaft assembly (see Figure 1).
In Reference to Claim 13#
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the liquid material is at the temperature between 1900°C and 2400°C while being pumped. Caleb states the liquid material can be within 1800 and 2080°C while being pumped (abstract, lines 10-11), which includes temperatures between 1900°C and 2400°C, such as 2000°C.
In Reference to Claim 20#
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the liquid material is pumped with a flow rate that is at least 1 gallon per minute. On page 5 of Caleb, under “Pumping results”, lines 1-3 refer to operating the pump in two experiments with the results being shown in Figure 10. On page 6, the graph on the right of Figure 10 shows the relationship between flowrates (measured in gallons per second) and mass. The flowrate ranges from 0 to a value between 60 and 70 gallons per second. Any flowrate value above 1/60 gallon per second is a flow rate that is at least 1 gallon per minute. For instance, a value of 30 gallons per second equals 1,800 gallons per minute.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb as modified by US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and US 2,921,533 to Williams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2,948,524 to Sweeney.
In Reference to Claim 2
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising the shaft assembly and the impeller.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
At least one of the shaft assembly and the impeller is formed from one or more materials selected from the group consisting of graphite, a metal, a nitride, a boride, a carbide, a silicide, and an oxide.
Sweeney teaches:
A pump comprising a shaft assembly (22) and an impeller (19), wherein the shaft assembly and impeller are formed from graphite or a carbide (silicon carbide) (column 3, lines 43-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by forming the shaft assembly and impeller of graphite or silicon carbide as taught by Sweeney for the purpose of having a high resistance to disintegration by either corrosive or erosive attack from a bath of molten metal (column 3, lines 52-54 of Sweeney).
In Reference to Claim 3#
Caleb as modified by Ruthman, Williams, and Sweeney teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the carbide is silicon carbide (column 3, line 59 of Sweeney).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb as modified by US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and US 2,921,533 to Williams as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of case law.
In Reference to Claim 5
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 4, comprising the first bearing and the second bearing.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
The diameter of each of the first bearing and the second bearing is greater than a diameter of the impeller.
The Court has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Williams teaches the first and second bearings which are larger than the shaft assembly to provide support for the shaft and impeller.
There is a reasonable expectation of success when increasing the size of the first and second bearings because larger bearings increase the strength of the bearing and provide further support for the shaft assembly and impeller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by sizing the first and second bearings to have diameters greater than the impeller diameter in view of case law for the purpose of ensuring the bearings have the necessary strength to support the shaft assembly and impeller.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb as modified by US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and US 2,921,533 to Williams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,890,104 to Gomyo.
In Reference to Claim 6
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising the first bearing and the second bearing, and wherein the first bearing and the second bearing are hydrodynamically lubricated by filling the liquid material between each of the first bearing and the second bearing and the shaft assembly.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
Each of the first bearing and the second bearing comprises grooves.
Gomyo teaches:
A pump comprising a bearing (13) having grooves (13a, 13b), wherein the bearing is lubricated by filling at least via the grooves, a liquid material (5) between the bearing and a shaft assembly (21) (see column 6, line 61 through column 7, line 27 and Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by adding grooves to the first bearing and the second bearing as taught by Gomyo for the purpose of controlling the pressure of the lubricating fluid (column 7, lines 20-24 of Gomyo).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb as modified by US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and US 2,921,533 to Williams as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 6,439,860 to Greer.
In Reference to Claim 7
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising the first bearing and the second bearing.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
At least one of the first bearing and the second bearing is formed from one or more materials selected from the group consisting of graphite, alumina, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, and zirconia.
Greer teaches:
A pump (1) comprising a bearing (8A), wherein the bearing is formed of graphite (see column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 5 and column 4, lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by forming the first bearing and the second bearing of graphite as taught by Greer for the purpose of further supporting the shaft assembly with a bearing having the desired material properties, such as strength.
In Reference to Claim 8
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising the first bearing and the second bearing.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
At least one of the first bearing and the second bearing is formed from graphite.
Greer teaches:
A pump (1) comprising a bearing (8A), wherein the bearing is formed of graphite (see column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 5 and column 4, lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by forming the first bearing and the second bearing of graphite as taught by Greer for the purpose of further supporting the shaft assembly with a bearing having the desired material properties, such as strength.
In Reference to Claim 9
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein an operating environment (space where pump is located) of the circulation pump is defined by a cold zone (region near the motor of Caleb) and a hot zone (region near the impeller of Caleb) having a higher operating temperature than the cold zone.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
The first bearing is positioned in the cold zone thereby allowing replacement of the first bearing without accessing the hot zone.
Greer teaches:
A pump (1) comprising a bearing (8A) positioned in a cold zone (area near motor 2) thereby allowing replacement of the bearing without accessing a hot zone (area near impeller 26) (see column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 5 and Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by locating the first bearing in the cold zone as taught by Greer for the purpose of supporting the shaft assembly at the desired location.
In Reference to Claim 10
Caleb as modified by Ruthman, Williams and Greer teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the second bearing is positioned in the hot zone (the second bearing of Williams is above the impeller, see Figure 1).
In Reference to Claim 11
Caleb as modified by Ruthman, Williams, and Greer teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein: the circulation pump further comprises a motor (motor of Caleb, see Figure 3 with the rejection of claim 1) positioned in the cold zone proximate the first bearing.
Greer further teaches the shaft assembly comprises a first shaft (2B), a second shaft (12), and a coupling component (6), the first shaft is attached to the motor (2), the second shaft is attached to the impeller (26), the coupling component is attached to the first shaft and the second shaft, the first shaft and the second shaft are separated by a gap (space occupied by coupling 6) along a shaft axis (axis of rotation) of the shaft assembly, and the coupling component surrounds the first shaft and the second shaft (see column 6, lines 19-21 and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman, Williams, and Greer by forming the shaft of a first shaft and a second shaft, and adding a coupling component which joins the first and second shafts as taught by Greer for the purpose of allowing easy removal of the motor shaft (column 2, lines 24-27 of Greer).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb as modified by US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and US 2,921,533 to Williams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0045197 to Henry.
In Reference to Claim 12
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1 comprising the liquid material.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
The liquid material comprises molten tin (Sn). Caleb uses silicon as the liquid material.
Henry teaches:
A pump (100) comprising a liquid material (liquid tin), wherein the liquid material comprises molten tin (see paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by using molten tin as the liquid material as taught by Henry which is a simple substitution of one known element for another which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a method of pumping molten tin by rotating the impeller at a high temperature.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb as modified by US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and US 2,921,533 to Williams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,779,453 to Nagayama et al.
In Reference to Claim 14
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising the cooling component, wherein the cooling component has a cylindrical shape (water jacket of Ruthman is cylindrical, see Figure 11), and comprises an inner surface (surface which faces the shaft) which absorbs thermal radiation from the shaft assembly.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
The inner surface is black.
Nagayama teaches:
A pump comprising a cooling component (can 7 and frame 9) having an inner surface (4) which is black (column 5, lines 29-33) to absorb thermal radiation from a portion (motor stators on end of shaft) of the shaft (see column 5, lines 29-44 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by making the inner surface of the cooling component black as taught by Nagayama for the purpose of increasing the amount of heat radiated from the shaft to the cooling component.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb as modified by US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and US 2,921,533 to Williams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,524,066 to Thut and case law.
In Reference to Claim 15
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1 comprising the impeller.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
The impeller comprises vanes cut into a cylindrical surface, and a ratio of a height the cylindrical surface over a diameter of the cylindrical surface is 0.1 to 100. Caleb is silent regarding the shape of the impeller.
Thut teaches:
A pump (10) comprising an impeller (21), wherein the impeller comprises vanes (not numbered, material between passages 78) cut into a cylindrical surface (74), and wherein the cylindrical surface has a height (length in axial direction) and a diameter, and there is a ratio of the height to the diameter (see column 8, lines 7-34, column 9, lines 5-13, and Figures 1 and 4).
The Court has held that limitations relating to the size of [an apparatus] were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A. Changes in Size/Proportion for further clarification).
In In re Rose, the applicant claimed a lumber package comprising a plurality of bundles including strips of lumber, wherein the strips of each bundle cooperated to provide a composite package of a size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck. The applied prior art taught a lumber package comprising one or more layers which could be lifted by hand. The Appellant argued the prior art failed to teach the package being of a size and weight which required handling by a lift truck. The Court found that the limitation regarding the size and weight is not patentably significant since it relates to the size of the article under consideration which is not ordinarily a matter of invention.
In the instant application, Thut teaches the impeller having a cylindrical surface with a ratio of the height to the diameter.
There is a reasonable expectation of success when changing the size of the impeller such that the ratio is between 0.1 and 100 because the impeller would fit within the pump and still be capable of moving the liquid material. The ratio affects the flow rate of the liquid material, where a larger height allows more material to move through the impeller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by replacing the impeller with an impeller having vanes cut into a cylindrical surface and having a ratio of height over diameter as taught by Thut which is a simple substitution of one known element for another which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be an impeller having vanes which rotates to pump the liquid material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman, Williams, and Thut by sizing the impeller such that the ratio is between 0.1 and 100 in view of case law for the purpose of allowing the desired amount of material to move through the impeller.
In Reference to Claim 16
Caleb as modified by Ruthman, Williams, Thut, and case law teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the impeller further comprises openings (24 of Thut) at a bottom surface (72 of Thut) that is perpendicular to the cylindrical surface (see column 9, lines 5-13 and Figure 4 of Thut).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “High-temperature Pumping of Silicon for Thermal Energy Grid Storage” to Caleb as modified by US 2,304,849 to Ruthman and US 2,921,533 to Williams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,074,601 to Thut (hereafter Thut 601).
In Reference to Claim 18
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1 comprising the liquid material in the pump chamber.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
Controlling a minimum pressure of the liquid material in the pump chamber by supplying a gas, having a gas pressure, to the pump chamber, wherein the minimum pressure of the liquid material is a function of the gas pressure that is variable, and forming a gas-liquid interface between the liquid material having a liquid material pressure and the gas having the gas pressure by supplying the gas to the pump chamber, the liquid material being positioned below the gas-liquid interface, wherein a position of the gas-liquid interface in the pump chamber varies as a function of the gas pressure.
Thut 601 teaches:
A method of controlling a pump (10), the method comprising:
controlling a minimum pressure of a liquid material (molten metal 14) in a pump chamber (space occupied by impeller 34) by supplying a gas (pressurized inert gas, see column 4, line 64), having a gas pressure (0 to 5 psi, column 8, lines 9-11, or higher than 5 psi, column 8, lines 15-17), to the pump chamber,
wherein the minimum pressure of the liquid material is a function of the gas pressure that is variable (the regulator 41 controls the gas pressure, which presses against and affects the liquid height and therefore pressure, column 7, lines 39-44), and
forming a gas-liquid interface (not shown, inherent plane where gas meets liquid) between the liquid material having a liquid material pressure and the gas having the gas pressure by supplying the gas to the pump chamber (column 7, lines 36-39),
the liquid material being positioned below the gas-liquid interface, wherein a position of the gas-liquid interface in the pump chamber varies as a function of the gas pressure (see column 7, line 30 through column 8, line 23 and Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by controlling a minimum pressure of the liquid material by supplying a gas, and forming a gas-liquid interface as taught by Thut 601 for the purpose of avoiding cavitation in the pump (column 7, lines 39-43 of Thut 601).
In Reference to Claim 19
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams teaches:
The method of claim 1, comprising the circulation pump and the liquid material.
Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams fails to teach:
The pump is maintained in an inert environment while pumping the liquid material.
Thut 601 teaches:
A method of controlling a pump (10), wherein the pump is maintained in an inert environment (area having pressurized inert gas) while pumping the liquid material (column 4, lines 63-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Caleb as modified by Ruthman and Williams by adding gas to maintain the pump in an inert environment while pumping the liquid material as taught by Thut 601 for the purpose of avoiding cavitation in the pump (column 7, lines 39-43 of Thut 601).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights