DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/27/2025. Claims 1-23 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pump means comprises a two-stage pump arrangement, wherein a rotary disc pump coupled to and driven by the flywheel shaft forms a first stage, and wherein a centrifugal pump with a vaned impeller forms a second stage, as required by claim 5, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0041] line 4 reads “flywheel 33 and flywheel shaft 32”, --flywheel 11 and flywheel shaft 19-- is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7, 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 16 reads “the lubricant”, --the liquid lubricant-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 17 reads “second bearings”, --second spin bearings-- is suggested.
Claim 2 line 2 reads “the reservoir”, --the reservoir or collection chamber-- is suggested.
Claim 7 line 3 reads “storing liquid”, --storing the liquid-- is suggested.
Claim 11 line 3 reads “that lubricant”, --that the lubricant-- is suggested.
Claim 15 line 15 reads “storing liquid”, --storing the liquid-- is suggested.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 12-21 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.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21 use the phrases “about”, “generally” and “essentially”. The terms are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about”, “generally” and “essentially” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 lines 2 and 4 recite the limitation “the pump means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 line 3 recites the limitation “a gerotor pump (“generated rotor” pump)”. The Examiner notes that MPEP 608.01(m) states that “[w] here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation…reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims”. As such, limitations in parentheses are not read into claims and it is therefore unclear what limitations are required in the claims.
Claim 7 line 2 recites the limitation “the lubricant circuit outside the housing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 line 4 recite the limitation “1.2 bar to about 3.2 bar (absolute)”. The Examiner notes that MPEP 608.01(m) states that “[w] here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation…reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims”. As such, limitations in parentheses are not read into claims and it is therefore unclear what limitations are required in the claims.
Claim 12 line 3 recites the limitation “an essentially vertical spin axis”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a spin axis recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires an additional spin axis.
Claim 12 lines 3-4 recite the limitation “the first and second spin bearings comprise an upper spin bearing and a lower spin bearing”. It is unclear what is required by this claim limitation. For example, is the limitation attempting to rename the claimed elements from a first spin bearing to an upper spin bearing and a second spin bearing to a lower spin bearing, or is the limitation requiring the first spin bearing to comprise and upper and lower spin bearing and the second spin bearing to comprise an upper and lower spin bearing.
Claim 13 line 3 recites the limitation “the housing chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 line 14 recites the limitation “the lubricant circuit outside the housing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 line 15 recites the limitation “1.7 bar to about 3.7 bar (absolute)”. The Examiner notes that MPEP 608.01(m) states that “[w] here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation…reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims”. As such, limitations in parentheses are not read into claims and it is therefore unclear what limitations are required in the claims.
Accordingly, from the above, the claims and disclosure are generally narrative and indefinite, appearing to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. A great deal of confusion and uncertainty exists as to the proper interpretation of the claim limitations. In accordance with MPEP § 2173 the examiner has applied the prior art elsewhere below under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 in as best as the claims can be understood in the interest of compact prosecution. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miocevich discloses a gyrostabiliser assembly (see Fig. 1-2; 10) comprising: a housing (13) defining a flywheel chamber (12) for an operating pressure (see paragraph [0066], wherein 12 is disclosed as a vacuum chamber); a flywheel (11) mounted within the flywheel chamber for rotation about a spin axis (20) at the operating pressure; a flywheel shaft (19) upon which the flywheel is mounted in the flywheel chamber supported by a first spin bearing (21) and a second spin bearing (23) provided at opposite end regions of the flywheel shaft; a first spin bearing chamber (22) accommodating the first spin bearing and being separated from the flywheel chamber by a first shaft seal (33); a second spin bearing chamber (24) accommodating the second spin bearing and being separated from the flywheel chamber by a second shaft seal (34); and a bearing lubrication system comprising a lubricant circuit (30) for circulating a liquid lubricant (see paragraph [0068], wherein lubrication oil is disclosed) to the first and second spin bearings from a lubricant reservoir or collection chamber (60) located in or adjacent to the second spin bearing chamber for collecting the liquid lubricant from the first and second spin bearings under gravity (see paragraph [0071], wherein drain lines 68 show the drain path of oil draining out of the lower spin bearings 31, 32 into the oil collection chamber 60), wherein a pump is provided in the reservoir or collection chamber that is coupled to and driven by the flywheel shaft for circulating the lubricant in the lubricant circuit to the first and second bearings (see paragraph [0027], wherein at least one return oil pump may be located in the oil collection chamber, for example the at least one return oil pump may be driven by the flywheel shaft).
Regarding claim 5, Miocevich discloses the pump means provided in the reservoir or collection chamber is selected from the group of: a gerotor pump (generated rotor" pump), a bladed centrifugal pump, a vaned pump, or a positive displacement pump (see paragraph [0071], wherein various types of pump can be suitable, including gear, screw, diaphragm or piston pumps or other types of pump that can pump a mixed flow. Note that a gerator pump, a bladed centrifugal pump, a vaned pump or and a positive displacement pump are all types of pumps that can pump a mixed flow); or wherein the pump means comprises a two-stage pump arrangement, wherein a rotary disc pump coupled to and driven by the flywheel shaft forms a first stage, and wherein a centrifugal pump with a vaned impeller forms a second stage.
Regarding claim 10, Miocevich discloses the lubrication system includes a lubricant delivery outlet for targeted delivery or injection of the lubricant at each of the first and second spin bearings (21, 31; see paragraph [0014], wherein each of the at least one outlet may include or be at least one nozzle. The at least one outlet into the upper spin bearing chamber may include at least one oil jet or spray directed onto the upper spin bearing, such as by the at least one nozzle).
Regarding claim 11, Miocevich discloses the first and second spin bearings (21, 31) are configured and arranged within the housing (13) such that lubricant circulated to the first and second spin bearings drains out of each respective spin bearing for return to the reservoir or collection chamber (60) under gravity (via 58, 68).
Regarding claim 12, Miocevich discloses the flywheel shaft (19) is mounted in an essentially vertical orientation within the housing (13) for rotation about an essentially vertical spin axis (20), wherein the first and second spin bearings (21, 23) comprise an upper spin bearing (21) and a lower spin bearing (23), respectively.
Regarding claim 14, Miocevich discloses the operating pressure is a partial vacuum or rough vacuum in a range of about 1 mbar to 100 mbar absolute pressure such that the chamber in which the flywheel is mounted forms a vacuum chamber (see paragraph [0012], wherein the vacuum chamber may be at a pressure of less than 600 Torr (or 600 mmHg), although to reduce drag and heat generated by flywheel rotation the pressure in the vacuum chamber may preferably be less than 200 Torr and more preferably less than 50 Torr; note that 50 Torr is equal to 66.6612 mbar).
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 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1) in view of Dial (US 6375412 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Miocevich discloses the flywheel shaft (19) [rotates] at speeds in the range of about 3,000 rpm to about 10,000 rpm (see paragraph [0003], wherein a flywheel which, in use, spins about a spin axis at a high rotational speed of typically three thousand to ten thousand revolutions per minute). Miocevich fails to disclose a rotary disc pump. However, Dial teaches a rotary disc pump (see Fig. 1A-1B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with a rotary disc pump, as taught by Dial, to provide a compact, efficient and versatile system for driving fluids without introducing unnecessary turbulence to the fluid medium and loss of energy transfer through heat and vibration (see column 1 lines 61 to column 2 line 2). The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the pump provided in the reservoir (Miocevich; 60) comprises a rotary disc pump (Dial; Fig. 1A-1B), wherein an impeller (Dial; 1) of the rotary disc pump is rotated by the flywheel shaft (Miocevich; 19).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of claim 2 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the rotary disc pump (Dial; Fig. 1A-1B) is arranged within the reservoir or collection chamber (Miocevich; 60) submerged in the lubricant (Miocevich; paragraph [0027], wherein at least one return oil pump may be located in the oil collection chamber).
Regarding claim 4, Miocevich fails to disclose an impeller of the pump includes at least two substantially plain or flat discs mounted in an axially aligned and generally parallel arrangement with respect to one another, wherein the at least two substantially plain or flat discs include a first solid disc and a second annular disc of substantially same outer diameter as the first disc. However, Dial teaches an impeller (see Fig. 1A-1B; 1) of the pump includes at least two substantially plain or flat discs (2, 12) mounted in an axially aligned and generally parallel arrangement with respect to one another (see Fig. 1A), wherein the at least two substantially plain or flat discs include a first solid disc (12) and a second annular disc of substantially same outer diameter as the first disc (2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with a rotary disc pump, as taught by Dial, to provide a compact, efficient and versatile system for driving fluids without introducing unnecessary turbulence to the fluid medium and loss of energy transfer through heat and vibration (see column 1 lines 61 to column 2 line 2).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Miocevich fails to disclose the pump means provided in the reservoir or collection chamber is selected from the group of: a gerotor pump (generated rotor" pump), a bladed centrifugal pump, a vaned pump, or a positive displacement pump; or wherein the pump means comprises a two-stage pump arrangement, wherein a rotary disc pump coupled to and driven by the flywheel shaft forms a first stage, and wherein a centrifugal pump with a vaned impeller forms a second stage. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with a gerator pump, a bladed centrifugal pump, a vaned pump or and a positive displacement pump since it is well known in the art to substitute one type of pump for another type of pump to achieve the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06(II)). First, the Examiner notes that Miocevich discloses all types of pumps can be used, i.e., one pump can be substituted for another, and therefore equivalency is recognized in the prior art. Second, Applicant’s own disclosure lacks any criticality of the selection of a type of pump used in the reservoir or collection chamber. In fact, Applicant’s own disclosure discloses the criticality of a rotary disc pump and is silent to the use of the other pumps listed in the claim. Therefore, it is appropriate to rely solely on legal precedent to support an obviousness rejection.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1) in view of Ermolaev.
Regarding claim 6, Miocevich discloses the liquid lubricant is oil (see paragraph [0054], wherein the lubrication circuit may include at least one jet or spray for releasing lubricating oil into a bearing chamber housing of the spin bearing). Miocevich fails to disclose the oil has a vapour pressure less than 40 mbar at 80°C. However, Ermolaev teaches the oil has a vapour pressure less than 40 mbar at 80°C (see Table 1, wherein seven lubricating oils are disclosed with a vapor pressure significantly less than 40 mbar at 80°C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with a lubricating oil that has a vapor pressure less than 40 mbar at 80°C, since it is well known in vacuum systems that if oil vapor pressure is too high, it will vaporize when exposed to the vacuum and the vapor can contaminate the vacuum chamber. Additionally, it is well known in the art to select a material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.06. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have known to select an oil having a suitable vapor pressure when used in a vacuum system.
Claim 7, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1) in view of Pinder.
Regarding claim 7, Miocevich fails to disclose an oil accumulator. However, Pinder teaches an oil accumulator (see page 10; accusump). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with an oil accumulator, as taught by Pinder, to maintain oil pressure in a system when experiencing an oil starvation situation (see page 2), to maintain proper lubrication of system components which prevents damage to components; and to enable a lubricating system to cope with extremes of demand using a less powerful pump, to respond more quickly to temporary demand and to smooth out pulsations. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the lubricant circuit (Miocevich; 30) outside the housing (Miocevich; 13) includes an oil accumulator (Pinder; accusump), for storing liquid lubricant and maintaining pressure of the lubricant (Pinder; page 10) at a pressure in the range of about 1.2 bar to about 3.2 bar (absolute) (Pinder; page 21, wherein an accumulator can be selected based on requirements, i.e., under 25 PSI (1.72369 Bar) to over 60 PSI (4.13685 Bar)).
Regarding claim 15, Miocevich discloses a gyrostabiliser assembly (see Fig. 1-2; 10) comprising: a housing (13) defining a flywheel chamber (12) for an operating pressure (see paragraph [0066], wherein 12 is disclosed as a vacuum chamber); a flywheel (11) mounted within the flywheel chamber for rotation about a spin axis (20) at the operating pressure; a flywheel shaft (19) upon which the flywheel is mounted in the flywheel chamber supported by a first spin bearing (21) and a second spin bearing (23) provided at opposite end regions of the flywheel shaft; a first spin bearing chamber (22) accommodating the first spin bearing and being separated from the flywheel chamber by a first shaft seal (33); a second spin bearing chamber (24) accommodating the second spin bearing and being separated from the flywheel chamber by a second shaft seal (34); and a bearing lubrication system comprising a lubricant circuit (30) for circulating a liquid lubricant (see paragraph [0068], wherein lubrication oil is disclosed) to the first and second spin bearings from a lubricant reservoir or collection chamber (60) located in or adjacent to the second spin bearing chamber. Miocevich fails to disclose an oil accumulator for storing liquid lubricant and maintaining pressure of the lubricant. However, Pinder teaches an oil accumulator (see page 10; accusump). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with an oil accumulator, as taught by Pinder, to maintain oil pressure in a system when experiencing an oil starvation situation (see page 2), to maintain proper lubrication of system components which prevents damage to components; and to enable a lubricating system to cope with extremes of demand using a less powerful pump, to respond more quickly to temporary demand and to smooth out pulsations. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the lubricant circuit (Miocevich; 30) outside the housing (Miocevich; 13) includes an oil accumulator (Pinder; accusump), for storing liquid lubricant and maintaining pressure of the lubricant (Pinder; page 10) at a pressure in the range of about 1.7 bar to about 3.7 bar (absolute) (Pinder; page 21, wherein an accumulator can be selected based on requirements, i.e., under 25 PSI (1.72369 Bar) to over 60 PSI (4.13685 Bar)).
Regarding claim 17, Miocevich discloses a pump is provided in the reservoir or collection chamber (60) that is coupled to and driven by the flywheel shaft (19) for circulating the lubricant in the lubricant circuit to the first and second bearings (21, 23; see paragraph [0027], wherein at least one return oil pump may be located in the oil collection chamber, for example the at least one return oil pump may be driven by the flywheel shaft); or alternatively, wherein a pump is provided in the reservoir or collection chamber separate from the flywheel shaft and driven by an electric motor for circulating the lubricant in the lubricant circuit to the first and second bearings.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1) in view of Smith (US 10634233 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Miocevich discloses the lubricant circuit (30), via which the lubricant is circulated from the reservoir or collection chamber (60) to the bearings (21, 23) and back, includes a pump (75) external to the housing chamber (13). Miocevich fails to disclose a positive displacement pump as a start-up, shutdown, and pressure boost. However, Smith discloses a positive displacement pump as a start-up, shutdown, and pressure boost (see Fig. 2; 272 and see column 4 lines 1-3 wherein the supply pumps and scavenge pumps can also be configured to be positive displacement pumps). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with a positive displacement pump, as taught by Smith, to ensure the system and pumps are properly vented, primed and full of liquid to prevent damage to and/or failure of the system.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1) in view of Smith (US 20190367138 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Miocevich fails to disclose lubricant labyrinths. However, Smith teaches lubricant labyrinths (see Fig. 7; 110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with lubricant labyrinth seals, as taught by Smith, to seal the cavity such that the heat transfer medium is maintained within the cavity (see paragraph [0036]); and to provide a tortuous path to heal prevent leakage of the oil lubricating the bearing. The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the first and second spin bearings (Miocevich; 21, 23) have lubricant labyrinths (Smith; 110) around them to prevent the lubricant applied to the first and second spin bearings from flowing onto the flywheel (11); wherein the lubricant labyrinths are adapted to redirect the lubricant to the reservoir or collection chamber (Miocevich; 60) via channels (Miocevich; 58, 68).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1) in view of Magnetic Technologies LTD.
Regarding claim 13, Miocevich discloses an electric motor (25) for driving rotation of the flywheel (11) about the spin axis (20). Miocevich fails to disclose a magnetic coupling. However, Magnetic Technologies LTD teaches a magnetic coupling (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with a magnetic coupling, as taught by Magnetic Technologies LTD, to eliminate rotating seals, to eliminate part wear, so provide synchronous design with no slip at any speed, to allow for no physical contact between driving and driven part and to transmit torque through a containment barrier (see page 1). The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the electric motor (Miocevich; 25) is mounted outside of the housing chamber (Miocevich; 13) and is coupled to the flywheel shaft (Miocevich; 19) via a magnetic coupling (Magnetic Technologies LTD; Fig. 1).
Claim 16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miocevich (US 20180051988 A1) in view of Pinder and Dial (US 6375412 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Miocevich fails to disclose a rotary disc pump. However, Dial teaches a rotary disc pump (see Fig. 1A-1B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with a rotary disc pump, as taught by Dial, to provide a compact, efficient and versatile system for driving fluids without introducing unnecessary turbulence to the fluid medium and loss of energy transfer through heat and vibration (see column 1 lines 61 to column 2 line 2). The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the rotary disc pump (Dial; Fig. 1A-1B) is provided in the reservoir or collection chamber (Miocevich; 60) for circulating the lubricant in the lubricant circuit (Miocevich; 30) to the first and second bearings (Miocevich; 21, 23), wherein the rotary disc pump in the reservoir or collection chamber is coupled to and driven by the flywheel shaft (Miocevich; 19).
Regarding claim 17, Miocevich discloses a pump is provided in the reservoir or collection chamber (60) that is coupled to and driven by the flywheel shaft (19) for circulating the lubricant in the lubricant circuit to the first and second bearings (21, 23; see paragraph [0027], wherein at least one return oil pump may be located in the oil collection chamber, for example the at least one return oil pump may be driven by the flywheel shaft); or alternatively, wherein a pump is provided in the reservoir or collection chamber separate from the flywheel shaft and driven by an electric motor for circulating the lubricant in the lubricant circuit to the first and second bearings.
Regarding claim 18, Miocevich fails to disclose the pump has an impeller comprising two substantially flat discs mounted in a spaced, generally parallel arrangement with respect to one another, and including a first solid flat disc and a second, axially aligned annular flat disc. However, Dial teaches the pump (see Fig. 1A-1B) has an impeller (1) comprising two substantially flat discs (12, 2) mounted in a spaced, generally parallel arrangement with respect to one another, and including a first solid flat disc (12) and a second, axially aligned annular flat disc (2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Miocevich with a rotary disc pump, as taught by Dial, to provide a compact, efficient and versatile system for driving fluids without introducing unnecessary turbulence to the fluid medium and loss of energy transfer through heat and vibration (see column 1 lines 61 to column 2 line 2).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of claim 18 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the impeller (Dial; 1) includes a plurality of flat annular discs (Dial; 12, 2) mounted in an axially aligned and generally parallel arrangement with respect to one another (Dial; Fig. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 20, Miocevich in view of Pinder and Dial fail to disclose an outer diameter of each disc of the impeller is in a range of about 100 mm to 200 mm. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of claim 18 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: a radial width of each annular disc is in a range of about 20% to about 40% of an outer diameter of the annular disc (see Fig. 1B, wherein the radial width of 2 is approximately 30% of an outer diameter of the disc).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 20230271680 A1, US 4768920 A, US 3596523 A and US 6752597 B2 discloses different rotary disc pumps and gyrostabilizer arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
