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 .
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are currently pending. Claims 1-4, 6-21 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 11 of the response, filed June 15, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-8, 14, 15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The rejections of Claims 1-8, 14, 15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 11-14 of the response, filed with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Nowitzki et al. (US 9,039,356 B1). Nowitzki was previously cited as pertinent art.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s arguments, particularly the amendments defining of the diffuser bowl and front seal cavity, are found to be persuasive. However, the claim is still believed to be anticipated by Nowitzki as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim 9 is believed to encompass the same arguments as Claim 1 above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 14-15 of the response, filed with respect to the rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Ye et al. (US 11,377,939 B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant’s arguments, particularly the amendments defining of the diffuser bowl and the location of the rib, are found to be persuasive. However, the claim is still believed to be anticipated by Ye as detailed in the rejection below.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 15-17 of the response, filed with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Applicant argues Eslinger (US 2013/0259706 A1) does not expressly teach the claimed ribs at the front seal cavity. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted in the arguments with respect to Claim 1 above, this limitation will be addressed Nowitzki as part of the combination. Additionally, Claim 3 is amended such that it further specifies “additional ribs”, which Eslinger would meet the limitations of as detailed below.
Regarding Claim 6, as noted in the arguments with respect to Claim 1 above, the limitation of the ribs will be addressed by Nowitzki.
Regarding Claim 13, as noted in the arguments with respect to Claim 12 above, the limitation of the ribs will be addressed by Ye.
No further arguments have been presented with respect to the remaining claims.
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.
Claims 11 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Lines 1-2 recite “wherein the one or more partial ribs do not extend across an entire radial dimension of the outer wall of the diffuser.” However, Claim 9 describes the ribs as “extending between the outer wall and the inner wall”, with the outer wall circumscribing the inner wall. It is unclear why the claim compares the ribs to being across the radial dimension of the outer wall if it is described as being between the outer and inner walls rather than across the outer wall.
Regarding Claim 21, Lines 35 and 39 both recite “a flow passage”. It is unclear if this intends to be different flow passages or the same flow passage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nowitzki et al. (US 9,039,356 B1), hereinafter Nowitzki.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki disclose an electric submersible pump (see abstract) comprising: a shaft (1215) coupled to a submersible motor (not shown, Col. 1, Lines 26-29); and a plurality of stages (each pair of diffuser 600 and impeller 1200) disposed about the shaft (1215) and within an outer pump housing (not shown, Col. 1, Lines 63-65 mention housing), wherein each stage of the plurality of stages is configured to induce and to direct a flow of a fluid; each stage of the plurality of stages comprising: an impeller (1200) rotatably supported by the shaft (1215), the impeller (1200) having an intake end and a discharge end; a diffuser (600) having an upstream end (right end in Figure 9A) and a downstream end (left end in Figure 9A), the upstream end of the diffuser (600) including a diffuser bowl (portion of right end of 600) surrounding the discharge end of the impeller (1200) and defining a diffuser path for the flow of fluid, the downstream end of the diffuser including an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall configured to direct the flow of the fluid from the diffuser path toward the intake end of an adjacent downstream impeller (1200) of an adjacent downstream stage, the outer wall circumscribing the inner wall, a front seal cavity (655) being defined between the inner wall and the outer wall, and a front seal area being defined by the inner wall and configured to form a seal with a radially outer surface of the adjacent downstream impeller (1200); and one or more ribs (620) formed in or on the front seal cavity (655) and extending between the inner wall and the outer wall, the one or more ribs (620) positioned adjacent an interface between the downstream end of the diffuser (600) and the upstream end of an adjacent downstream diffuser (600) of the adjacent downstream stage (Col. 8, Lines 53-58, Col. 9, Lines 15-41). See also annotated Figure 9A’ below. Col. 1, Lines 32-41 describes fluid flowing from operation. For purposes of addressing the claim, the rightmost impeller (1200) and diffuser (600) are interpreted as one stage, with the ones (1200, 600) to the left as the downstream impeller (1200) and diffuser (600).
PNG
media_image1.png
739
1319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 Nowitzki discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki disclose wherein a diffuser bowl floor is defined in the front seal cavity (655), the diffuser bowl floor extending radially between the inner wall and the outer wall, wherein the one or more ribs (620) formed in or on the front seal cavity (655) partially extend across a radial dimension of the front seal cavity over the diffuser bowl floor. See also annotated Figure 9A’ above.
Regarding Claim 7, Nowitzki discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 9A of Nowitzki discloses wherein each impeller (1200) is configured to induce and to direct the flow of fluid through the diffuser path toward the adjacent downstream stage (600) (Col. 1, Lines 32-41).
Regarding Claim 8, Nowitzki discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki disclose wherein each impeller (1200) comprises: a central hub surrounding a bore through which the shaft (1215) extends, a skirt radially surrounding a portion of the central hub, the skirt defining the radially outer surface forming the seal with the front seal area of an adjacent upstream diffuser (600) of an adjacent upstream stage; a space radially between the skirt and the central hub defining the intake of impeller (1200); a balance ring extending longitudinally upward along an axis parallel to a longitudinal axis (axis along center of 1215) of the shaft (1215); impeller blades extending radially outward from the central hub; an upper plate that extends at an angle radially outward and upward from the central hub; and a lower plate that extends at an angle radially outward and from the skirt, wherein the impeller blades extend axially between the lower plate and the upper plate, and wherein the central hub, impeller blades, the lower plate, and upper plate define a path of the flow of fluid through the impeller (1200) between the intake end and the discharge end. Col. 1, Lines 32-41 describes fluid flowing from operation. See also annotated Figure 9A’ above and Figure 9A’’ below.
PNG
media_image2.png
739
1319
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki disclose an electric submersible pump (see abstract) comprising: a plurality of stages (each pair of diffuser 600 and impeller 1200), each stage of the plurality of stages being configured to induce and to direct a flow of a fluid; each stage of the plurality of stages comprising: an impeller (1200) having an intake end and a discharge end; a diffuser (600) having an upstream end (right end in Figure 9A) and a downstream end (left end in Figure 9A), the upstream end of the diffuser including a diffuser bowl (portion of right end of 600) surrounding the discharge end of the impeller (1200) and defining a diffuser path for the flow of fluid, the downstream end of the diffuser (600) including an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall configured to direct the flow of the fluid from the diffuser path toward the intake end of an adjacent downstream impeller (1200) of an adjacent downstream stage, the outer wall circumscribing the inner wall, a front seal cavity (655) being defined between the inner wall and the outer wall; and one or more partial ribs (620) disposed in the front seal cavity (655), the one or more partial ribs (620) extending between the inner wall and the outer wall a radial dimension that is less than an entire radial dimension of the front seal cavity between the inner wall and the outer wall, the one or more partial ribs (620) positioned adjacent an interface between the downstream end of the diffuser (600) and the upstream end of an adjacent downstream diffuser (600) of the adjacent downstream stage (Col. 8, Lines 53-58, Col. 9, Lines 15-41). See also annotated Figure 9A’ above. Col. 1, Lines 32-41 describes fluid flowing from operation. For purposes of addressing the claim, the rightmost impeller (1200) and diffuser (600) are interpreted as one stage, with the ones (1200, 600) to the left as the downstream impeller (1200) and diffuser (600)
Regarding Claim 10, Nowitzki discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 9.
Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki disclose wherein the one or more partial ribs (620) are disposed on a radially inward facing surface of the outer wall of the diffuser (600) and terminate in extent prior to the inner wall (Col. 8, Lines 53-58). See also annotated Figure 9A’ above.
Regarding Claim 11, as far as it is definite and understood, Nowitzki discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 9.
Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki disclose wherein the one or more partial ribs (620) do not extend across an entire radial dimension of the outer wall of the diffuser (600). See also annotated Figure 9A’ above.
Regarding Claim 14, Nowitzki discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 1.
Nowitzki discloses wherein the one or more ribs (620) formed in or on the front seal cavity (655) are formed directly from casting or by machining (Col. 9, Lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 16, Nowitzki discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 9.
Nowitzki discloses wherein the one or more partial ribs (620) disposed in the front seal cavity (655) are formed directly from casting or by machining (Col. 9, Lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 18, Nowitzki discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki disclose wherein the one or more ribs (620) formed in or on the front seal cavity (655) are configured to reduce a swirl of the fluid within the front seal cavity, by slowing a velocity of the fluid, and reduce erosion at a diffuser wall inner diameter and a nest area by deflecting sand particles back to a flow passage (Col. 6, Lines 20-33).
Claims 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (US 11,377,939 B1), hereinafter Ye.
Regarding Claim 12, Figures 2-3 of Ye teach an electrical submersible pump (see Col. 3, Lines 18-19) comprising: an impeller (29) having an intake end and a discharge end; a diffuser (25) having a diffuser bowl (radially inner portion of 25) defining a diffuser path (27) and including an outer wall surrounding the discharge end of the impeller (29); and one or more ribs (interpretable as thickened portion 41 or 53) disposed on a radially inner surface of the outer wall of the diffuser bowl, the one or more ribs positioned at an upstream end (bottom end in Figure 2) of the diffuser (25) axially upstream from the discharge end of the impeller (29) and the diffuser path (27) of the diffuser (25) (Col. 4, Lines 15-47). See also annotated Figure 2’ below.
PNG
media_image3.png
774
1301
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Ye discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 12.
Ye discloses wherein the one or more ribs (thickened portion of 41) disposed on the radially inner surface of the outer wall of the diffuser (25) are formed directly from casting (Col. 1, Lines 39-40). See also annotated Figure 2’ above.
Regarding Claim 20, Ye discloses the pump as set forth in Claim 12.
Ye discloses wherein the one or more ribs (53) disposed on the radially inner surface of the outer wall of the diffuser (25) are configured to reduce a swirl of a fluid at the outer wall, by slowing a velocity of the fluid, and reduce erosion at the outer wall by deflecting sand particles back to a flow passage (Col. 4, Lines 42-47). See also annotated Figure 2’ above.
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 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 3-4, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowitzki in view of Eslinger (US 2013/0259706 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nowitzki teaches the pump as set forth in Claim 1.
Nowitzki does not expressly teach wherein one or more additional ribs are formed in or on the front seal area as claimed. However, such ribs would have been obvious in view of Eslinger.
Figure 9 of Eslinger teaches a pump wherein one or more additional ribs (925 or 939) are formed in or on the front seal area (at 903 or 905), relative to their respective impellers (910-2, 910-1). These ribs help form particle passages [0067, 0069]. The presence of particle passages help reduce abrasive wear caused by grains during operation while limiting potential fluid leakage losses [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump taught by Nowitzki such that one or more additional ribs are formed in or on the front seal area as suggested by Eslinger, to provide the benefit of reducing abrasive wear with limiting fluid leakage losses.
Regarding Claim 4, Nowitzki and Eslinger teach the pump as set forth in Claim 3.
The modification by Eslinger in Claim 3 results wherein the one or more additional ribs (925 or 939) formed in or on the front seal area (at 903 or 905) are defined by undercut areas of the front seal area, the undercut areas being recessed radially outwardly in the inner wall (of 930), as exemplified in Figure 9 of Eslinger [0067,0069]. Eslinger even uses the term “undercut” to describe the ribs.
As seen in Figure 9A’ of Nowitzki above, this is interpretable as upstream from the seal formed between the seal formed between the front seal area and the radially outer surface of the adjacent downstream impeller. The “seal” is interpretable as any portion of the interface of the front seal area between the impeller (1200) and the diffuser (600). The ribs of Eslinger are do not cover all of the interface (see 905 in Figure 9), so the portions downstream the broadest reasonable interpretation of “seal”.
Regarding Claim 15, Nowitzki and Eslinger teach the pump as set forth in Claim 3.
The limitation of wherein the one or more additional ribs formed in or on the front seal area are formed directly from casting or by machining is considered a product by process limitation. Patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If a product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the product is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process (see MPEP 2113 regarding product-by-process claims). Figure 9 of Eslinger show ribs (939) being formed in one piece with the front seal area (see area of 930 ribs 939 are formed) [0069]. The record does not indicate the claimed processes of casting (molding in one piece) or machining (removing material from one piece) to imply a difference in structure compared to the disclosure of Eslinger. Note that Eslinger does at least contemplate casting and machining for a separate embodiment feature [0062].
Regarding Claim 19, Nowitzki and Eslinger the pump as set forth in Claim 3.
The modification by Eslinger in Claim 3 results wherein the one or more additional ribs (939) formed in or on the front seal area (region of 930 ribs 939 are formed) are configured to reduce a swirl of the fluid within the front seal area, by slowing a velocity of the fluid, and reduce erosion at the front seal area by deflecting sand particles back to a flow passage [0038, 0069]. The particle passages allow for free passage of particles while reducing channeling of fluid. If it is assumed the description of the operation of Eslinger is not sufficiently detailed, it is noted that the record does not indicate any further structure would be required to perform the claimed functions claimed in Claim 19. As noted above, Nowitzki-Eslinger teaches all the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding Claim 21, as far as it is definite and understood, Nowitzki teaches the pump as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki teach the one or more ribs (620) formed in or on the front seal cavity (655) are positioned on an inner radial surface of the outer wall facing an outer radial surface of the inner wall; the one or more ribs (620) terminate in extent prior to the outer radial surface of the inner wall; each impeller (1200) includes: a central hub surrounding a bore through which the shaft (1215) extends; a skirt radially surrounding a portion of the central hub, the skirt defining the radially outer surface forming the seal with the front seal area of an adjacent upstream diffuser (600) of an adjacent upstream stage; a space radially between the skirt and the central hub defining the intake of impeller (1200); a balance ring extending longitudinally upward along an axis parallel to a longitudinal axis (axis along center of 1215) of the shaft (1215); impeller blades extending radially outward from the central hub; an upper plate that extends at an angle radially outward and upward from the central hub; and a lower plate that extends at an angle radially outward and from the skirt, the impeller blades extend axially between the lower plate and the upper plate; for each impeller (1200), the central hub, impeller blades, the lower plate, and upper plate define a path of the flow of fluid through the impeller (1200); the one or more ribs (620) formed in or on the front seal cavity (655) are formed directly from casting or by machining; the one or more ribs (620) formed in or on the front seal cavity (655) are configured to reduce a swirl of the fluid within the front seal cavity (655), by slowing a velocity of the fluid, and reduce erosion at a diffuser wall inner diameter and a nest area by deflecting sand particles back to a flow passage (Col. 6, Lines 20-33, Col. 9, Lines 8-10). Col. 1, Lines 32-41 describes fluid flowing from operation. See also annotated Figures 9A’ and 9A’’ above.
Nowitzki does not expressly teach the one or more ribs extend a radial dimension from the inner radial surface of the outer wall that is no more than three-quarters of an entire radial dimension of the front seal cavity between the outer wall and the inner wall as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice is a change in relative dimensions. 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 relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not considered patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). With respect to the instant application, Figures 9A-B of Nowitzki show the rib (620) extending and being no more than a proportion of the entire radial dimension of the front seal cavity (655) due to the notch (630). The illustration is within the claimed range, which would at least suggest this limitation to one of ordinary skill, but Nowitzki is silent regarding to if the figures are intended to be to scale and does not specifically discuss the radial dimension. The rib is described as preventing swirl (Col. 6, Lines 20-33). There is currently no evidence on record that the rib would perform differently if modified to be specifically in the claimed range compared to out of it. Thus, the relative dimension is considered a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump taught by Nowitzki such that the one or more ribs extend a radial dimension from the inner radial surface of the outer wall that is no more than three-quarters of an entire radial dimension of the front seal cavity between the outer wall and the inner wall, since a change in relative dimensions is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Nowitzki does not expressly teach one or more additional ribs are formed in or on the front seal area, the one or more additional ribs being defined by undercut areas of the front seal area, the undercut areas being recessed radially outward in the inner wall, the undercut areas being positioned upstream from the seal formed between the front seal area and the radially outer surface of the adjacent downstream impeller; and the one or more additional ribs formed in or on the front seal area are configured to reduce a swirl of the fluid within the front seal area, by slowing a velocity of the fluid, and reduce erosion at the front seal area by deflecting sand particles back to a flow passage as claimed. However, such ribs would have been obvious in view of Eslinger.
Figure 9 of Eslinger teaches a pump wherein one or more additional ribs (925 or 939) are formed in or on the front seal area (at 903 or 905), relative to their respective impellers (910-2, 910-1), the one or more additional ribs (925 or 939) being defined by undercut areas of the front seal area, the undercut areas being recessed radially outward in the inner wall, the undercut areas being positioned upstream from the seal (any portion between 930 and 910-1 downstream from undercuts) formed between the front seal area and the radially outer surface of the adjacent downstream impeller (910-1 for 905). These ribs help form particle passages [0067, 0069]. The presence of particle passages help reduce abrasive wear caused by grains during operation while limiting potential fluid leakage losses [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump taught by Nowitzki such that one or more additional ribs are formed in or on the front seal area, the one or more additional ribs being defined by undercut areas of the front seal area, the undercut areas being recessed radially outward in the inner wall, the undercut areas being positioned upstream from the seal formed between the front seal area and the radially outer surface of the adjacent downstream impeller as suggested by Eslinger, to provide the benefit of reducing abrasive wear with limiting fluid leakage losses.
The modification by Eslinger is considered to meet the limitation of the one or more additional ribs (939) formed in or on the front seal area (region of 930 ribs 939 are formed) are configured to reduce a swirl of the fluid within the front seal area, by slowing a velocity of the fluid, and reduce erosion at the front seal area by deflecting sand particles back to a flow passage [0038, 0069]. The particle passages allow for free passage of particles while reducing channeling of fluid. If it is assumed the description of the operation of Eslinger is not sufficiently detailed, it is noted that the record does not indicate any further structure would be required to perform the claimed functions. As noted above, Nowitzki-Eslinger teaches all the claimed structural limitations.
The limitation of the one or more additional ribs formed in or on the front seal area are formed directly from casting or by machining is considered a product by process limitation. Patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If a product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the product is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process (see MPEP 2113 regarding product-by-process claims). Figure 9 of Eslinger show ribs (939) being formed in one piece with the front seal area (see area of 930 ribs 939 are formed) [0069]. The record does not indicate the claimed processes of casting (molding in one piece) or machining (removing material from one piece) to imply a difference in structure compared to the disclosure of Eslinger. Note that Eslinger does at least contemplate casting and machining for a separate embodiment feature [0062].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowitzki in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0167498 A1), hereinafter Chang.
Regarding Claim 6, Nowitzki teaches the pump as set forth in Claim 1.
Nowitzki does not expressly teach one or more spacers disposed axially between the impellers of sequential stages of the plurality of stages as claimed. However, spacers would have been obvious in view of Chang.
Figure 4 of Chang teaches a pump wherein sequential impellers (420-1, 420-2) are directly adjacent each other. This is similar to Nowitzki (see impellers 1200 in Figure 9A of Nowitzki). Chang contemplates contact may be directly, or indirectly through spacers, which would result in one or more spacers disposed axially between impellers of sequential stages of the plurality of stages [0045]. Thus, Chang evidences both arrangements are known in the art, and that simply substituting between the two would predictably result in operable assemblies. Chang also notes the use of spacers provides an added benefit of using different materials, such as a stiffer material [0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump taught by Nowitzki by simply substituting the arrangement such that one or more spacers disposed axially between impellers of sequential stages of the plurality of stages as evidenced by Chang, predictably resulting in a similarly operable assembly. The use of spacers also adds the benefit of material flexibility for the respective portions.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye.
Regarding Claim 13, Ye teaches the pump as set forth in Claim 12.
Ye does not expressly teach a portion of the outer wall of the diffuser has a thickness of at least 0.190 inches as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice is a change in size. Limitations relating to the size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over prior art (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). With respect to the instant application, the recitation of at least 0.190 inches is interpreted as merely relating to the overall size of the pump. The thickness of the outer wall will increase or decrease depending on changing the overall size of the pump. Therefore, choosing such a dimension is a considered a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump taught by Ye such that a portion of the outer wall of the diffuser has a thickness of at least 0.190 inches, since the resizing of a pump is considered a matter of design choice.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Pettigrew et al. (US 2012/0205112 A1), hereinafter Pettigrew. Claim 13 is rejected again for purposes of expediting prosecution, assuming the claim is specified to not encompass a simple overall dimension change.
Regarding Claim 13, Ye teaches the pump as set forth in Claim 12.
Ye does not expressly teach a portion of the outer wall of the diffuser has a thickness of at least 0.190 inches as claimed. However, thicker walls would have been obvious in view of Pettigrew.
Figure 3 of Pettigrew teaches a pump having diffusers (14) with outer walls (see portions of 14 adjacent to 21). Pettigrew acknowledges the wall strength of the diffuser is dependent upon the wall thickness, a thicker wall resulting in improved strength [0129]. Thus, the wall thickness is evidenced to be a results-effective variable. One of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the wall thickness by increasing or decreasing it to achieve a desired wall strength (see MPEP 2144.05, II regarding routine optimization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump taught by Ye such that a portion of the outer wall of the diffuser has a thickness of at least 0.190 inches as evidenced by Pettigrew, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the thickness to achieve a desired wall strength.
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights