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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
Priority
Applicant has listed the provisional US application as a “foreign application” on the Application Data Sheet (ADS), however, provisional US applications are considered as domestic benefit.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in Figures 2A and 2B in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Species are linked by a general inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because as documented in the rejection mailed on December 30, 2025, the Species lacked unity of invention because the common features as represented in claim 1 are not considered as a special technical feature in view of ESCHNER. The amendment to claim 1 received with the response to the restriction on January 20, 2026, does not change the fact that claim 1 still is not considered to have a special technical feature (please see the rejection below that shows that claim 1 does not have a special technical feature based on PESCHKE in view of ESCHNER). The Species in the rejection mailed on December 30, 2025 still does not have a special technical feature as shown in the rejection below, and therefore, the restriction is still valid. Applicant has elected species I shown in Figures 2A and 2B that they state read on claims 1-6 and 14-16. Claims 7-13 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected Species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: MULTIPHASE PUMPING SYSTEM WITH VERTICALLY MOUNTED DISCHARGE CHAMBER.
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 1-6 and 14-16 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 first and second screw rotors”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 previously recited “at least one set of rotors”. The Examiner recommends adding, “the at least one set of rotors includes a first screw rotor and a second screw rotor”.
Claims 2-6 and 14-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the discharge casing…fully surrounds a portion of the pump body”, which is indefinite, since how can something fully surround “a portion”? What does the applicant mean by this limitation. In addition, claim 1 already recited that the discharge casing “mounted on top of, and extending vertically from the pump body”. How can the discharge casing “fully surround” the pump body, and be mounted “on top of” the pump body?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites “the at least one set of rotors comprises at least one set of screw rotors”, where claim 1 already recited “the first and second screw rotors”, and therefore, claim 14 does not further limit claim 1, since the first and second screw rotors are considered to be part of the at least one set of rotors.
Claim 15 recites “discharge casing forms an angle of from 30-degrees to 90-degrees with respect to longitudinal axis of the pump body”, however, claim 1 was amended to recite “a discharge casing mounted on top of, and extending vertically from, the pump body”, where claim 15 undoes the limitations in claim 1. How can the discharge casing extend “vertically from the pump body” (where vertically is defined as extending right angles to a horizontal plane), and therefore, how can the discharge casing be at angles between 30-degrees and up to 90-degrees? The only angle that can be recited in claim 15 would be 90-degrees (which if this is changed to 90-degrees, it would be a duplicate of claim 16). The Examiner recommends canceling claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PESCHKE (WIPO Publication WO 99/45272) in view of ESCHNER (German Patent Publication DE 10 2017 118971 A1, a machine translation was provided with the PTO-892 mailed on December 30, 2025, and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, PESCHKE discloses: a multiphase pump system (Page 6, lines 11-21), comprising:
a pump (5) having at least one set of rotors (123, 124) disposed within a pump body (see Figure 9), and at least one inlet (116) in fluid communication with the first and second rotors, respectively (see Figure 9, where (116) is connected to (131) the inlet to the rotors); and
a discharge casing (140) mounted on top of, and extending vertically from, the pump body (110, 139, 120, 130) (see Figure 8 that shows the discharge casing is mounted on top of and extending vertically from (110)) for receiving fluid discharged from the first and second screw rotors (Page 5, lines 9-13 discloses that screw rotor pump is adaptable to the apparatus of PESCHKE) (Page 14, line 26 – Page 17, line 2, the Examiner would like to note that the claim is interpreted broadly where the claim does not recite that the discharge casing directly receives the fluid discharged from the first and second rotors, since the discharge casing (140) does receive the fluid that is discharged from the first and second rotors, PESCHKE meets the claimed limitation), the discharge casing further having a longitudinal axis that is oriented at a non-zero angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pump body (see Figure 9, where the discharge casing is at a 90 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the pump body);
wherein the discharge casing comprises a separation chamber that facilitates separation of liquid and gas components of the fluid discharged from the first and second rotors (Page 17, line 29 – Page 18, line 6), and
wherein the pump body includes at least one opening for directing separated liquid from the discharge casing to a discharge chamber of the pump body (see Figure 8, Page 17, line 29 – Page 18, line 6).
PESCHKE discloses that the pump comprising screw rotors is usable with the apparatus of the invention, where the Figures show inner and outer gear rotors. PESCHKE therefore fails to specifically disclose at least one set of screw rotors comprising a first and second screw rotors.
Regarding claim 1, PESCHKE teaches: the pump comprising at least one set of screw rotors comprising a first and second screw rotors (3, 4) (see Page 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the pump comprising at least one set of screw rotors comprising a first and second screw rotors in the multiphase pump system of PESCHKE, since utilizing a well-known pump (such as a multi-screw rotor pump, which was pointed out by PESCHKE as being capable of being used as the pump for the current apparatus) that has a first and second screw rotors, requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. the ability to pump the fluid).
Regarding claim 2, PESCHKE fails to disclose: at least one orifice in the pump body to permit liquid to recirculate from the discharge casing to the at least one inlet.
Regarding claim 2, ESCHNER teaches: at least one orifice (28) in the pump body to permit liquid to recirculate from the discharge casing to the at least one inlet (5) (see Figure 1, Page 4 where a passage is shown to direct liquid back to the inlet (5) via (28)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have at least one orifice in the pump body to permit liquid to recirculate from the discharge casing to the at least one inlet in the multiphase pump system of PESCHKE, in order to provide adequate lubrication for the screw rotors (see top of Page 5 of ESCHNER).
Regarding claim 3, ESCHNER further teaches: at least one orifice (28) in a pump liner portion of the pump body to permit liquid to recirculate from the discharge casing to the at least one inlet (see Figure 1, and Page 4).
Regarding claim 4, PESCHKE discloses: the discharge casing partially or fully surrounds a portion of the pump body (see Figures 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, PESCHKE discloses: a central axis of the discharge casing is offset from a center of the pump body (see Figures 8-10).
Regarding claim 14, the modified multiphase pump system of PESCHKE/ ESCHNER discloses: the at least one set of rotors comprises at least one set of screw rotors (see discussion above, where ESCHNER teaches at least one set of screw rotors).
Regarding claim 15, PESCHKE discloses: the longitudinal axis of the discharge casing is oriented at an angle so that the longitudinal axis of the discharge casing forms an angle of from 30-degrees to 90-degrees with respect to longitudinal axis of the pump body (see Figures 8 and 10 that shows the longitudinal axis of the discharge casing forms an angle of 90-degrees with respect to longitudinal axis of the pump body).
Regarding claim 16, PESCHKE discloses: the longitudinal axis of the discharge casing is oriented at an angle so that the longitudinal axis of the discharge casing forms an angle of about 90-degrees with respect to longitudinal axis of the pump body (see Figures 8 and 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified multiphase pump system of PESCHKE / ESCHNER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HATTON (U.S. Patent 5,871,340).
Regarding claim 6, the modified multiphase pump system of PESCHKE / ESCHNER discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose: the at least one inlet is positioned to provide inlet flow tangential to the at least one set of screw rotors.
Regarding claim 6, HATTON teaches: the at least one inlet (120) is positioned to provide inlet flow tangential to the at least one set of screw rotors (see Figure 3A, where the inlet flow enters the screw rotors tangentially).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the at least one inlet is positioned to provide inlet flow tangential to the at least one set of screw rotors in the modified multiphase pump system of PESCHKE / ESCHNER, since utilizing known entry locations in a screw pump including a tangential entry to the screw rotors requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. the ability to fill the screw rotors to move the fluid from the inlet to the discharge).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHOU (Chinese Patent Publication CN 202628526 U) discloses a multiphase pumping system with a set of screw rotors (7, 8) with a discharge casing (see Figure 1 that shows a discharge casing above the screw rotors), where the discharge casing includes a separation chamber (see Figure 1 where (3) and (1) are used to separate oil from the gas, see ¶0011). The discharge casing is mounted on top of, and extending vertically from the pump body (see Figure 1).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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.
/Mary A Davis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746