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(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a bearing support in the preamble and hence it is directed to a bearing support. The recitation of “a pump” and “a wet-running pump unit” are therefore interpreted as an intention of use. However, claim 1 later recites elements from the pump. Then in claim 10 recites “A wet-running pump unit” with “A” again. It is not clear if claim 1 positively recites and requires a pump or not, because a bearing support cannot comprise of a pump. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 and 10 are indefinite. One way to obviate this rejection is to change the preamble of claim 1 to something like “A limitations as parts of the pump and change claim 10 to recite “the” instead of “a” and remove the duplicate limitations. Note that if this change is made, other dependent claims will have “the wet-running pump unit according to claim …”.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gaba (US 2021/0222699).
With regard to claim 1, Gaba discloses a bearing support for pump, wherein the bearing support is mounted on a wet-running pump unit (Fig. 1, 2), and the wet-running pump unit comprises a pump head assembly (3), a shield can (Fig. 1, 2), a bearing support (29), a front bearing (37), and a rotor assembly (19), wherein the bearing support comprises a radial extension disk surface (Fig. 1, 2, 3b); and the radial extension disk surface is welding connected to a shield-can fitting surface (Fig. 1, 2), and the radial extension disk surface or the shield-can fitting surface is provided with a through slot (47) for forming a first fluid channel (Fig. 4a, 4b).
The limitation “the radial extension disk surface is welding connected to a shield-can fitting surface” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is that the connection is made by welding. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar product is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the structure implied by the step is merely the formation of a connection which is taught by Gaba. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to claim 2, Gaba further discloses that the through slot is connected to a pump volute high-pressure region of the pump head assembly, and a liquid in the pump volute high-pressure region of the pump head assembly enters the shield can through the first fluid channel and fills up the shield can (Fig. 4a, 4b).
With regard to claim 3, Gaba further discloses that the radial extension disk surface is provided with an arched portion that avoids the through slot (Fig. 1, 2, 3b).
With regard to claim 4, Gaba further discloses that the rotor assembly is immersed in the liquid in the shield can, and the liquid flows through a pinhole provided in a rotary shaft of the rotor assembly to a suction opening of the pump head assembly, forming a second fluid channel for the liquid in the shield can (Fig. 4a, 4b, [0055]).
With regard to claim 9, Gaba further discloses that there is one or more through slots (Fig. 1, 2, 3b).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaba (US 2021/0222699) in view of Chen et al. (CN 115085438), referred to hereinafter as Chen.
With regard to claims 5 and 6:
Gaba discloses the bearing support of claim 4, as set forth above, and further discloses that the bearing support for pump further comprises a flange connected to the arched portion and a bearing housing formed by the flange (Fig. 3b. Note that the claim doesn’t require direct connection).
Gaba does not appear to explicitly disclose that the bearing support for pump further comprises a second flange connected to the arched portion, a first flange connected to the second flange, and the bearing housing formed by the first flange, the first flange is radially provided with a step avoidance space fitting with a first inner diameter of the shield can, and the second flange has the bearing housing as a coaxial reference and is in fitting with the first inner diameter of the shield can.
However, Chen teaches a second flange connected to the arched portion, a first flange connected to the second flange, and a bearing housing formed by the first flange, the first flange is radially provided with a step avoidance space fitting with a first inner diameter of the shield can, and the second flange has the bearing housing as a coaxial reference and is in fitting with the first inner diameter of the shield can (Fig. 4a, 4b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and make the bearing support such that the flange is a second flange connected to the arched portion, a first flange connected to the second flange, and the bearing housing formed by the first flange, the first flange is radially provided with a step avoidance space fitting with a first inner diameter of the shield can, and the second flange has the bearing housing as a coaxial reference and is in fitting with the first inner diameter of the shield can, to yield predictable results of supporting the bearing.
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Gaba and Chen further discloses that the radial extension disk surface, the through slot, the arched portion, the first flange, the second flange, and the bearing housing are components formed through integral (regarding integral, see Fig. 4a, 4b of Chen) metal stamping and drawing.
The limitation “components formed through integral metal stamping and drawing” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is that the components are formed by metal stamping and drawing. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar product is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the structure implied by the step is merely the formation of an integral component which is taught by the combination of Gaba and Chen. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to claim 10:
Gaba discloses a wet-running pump unit with a bearing support (Fig. 1, 2), comprising a pump head assembly (3), an impeller (25), an impeller cover (Fig. 1, 2), a flat sealing ring (Fig. 1, 2), a shield can (Fig. 1, 2), a front bearing (37), an axial locking bearing (Fig. 1, 2), an axial locking bearing sleeve (Fig. 1, 2), a rear bearing (39), a rear bearing support member (Fig. 1, 2), a rotor assembly (19), and a stator assembly (17), the rotor assembly comprises a rotary shaft (13) and a permanent magnet (see [0044] disclosing “permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) 15”), and the wet-running pump unit further comprises the bearing support for pump according to claim 1 (Fig. 1, 2).
Gaba does not appear to explicitly disclose that the axial locking bearing sleeve is a rubber sleeve.
However, Chen teaches an axial locking bearing sleeve (9) that is a rubber sleeve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making an axial locking bearing sleeve from rubber, to improve similar devices in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaba (US 2021/0222699) in view of Chen et al. (CN 115085438), referred to hereinafter as Chen, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2019/0284746), referred to hereinafter as Zhao.
With regard to claim 7:
the combination of Gaba and Chen discloses the bearing support of claim 5, as set forth above, and further discloses that the front bearing is concentrically assembled with the second flange (Gaba, Fig. 1, 2, and Chen, Fig. 1, 2).
the combination of Gaba and Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose that the bearing housing is in interference fitting with the front bearing.
However, Zhao teaches a bearing housing (17) that is in interference fitting with the bearing ([0033], [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely connecting the bearing housing in interference fitting with the front bearing, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar bearing supports such as US20200191161 and US20160177962.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights