Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Figures 1A-1D) in the reply filed on 12 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6, 9-12, and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 June 2026.
The Examiner notes, while the Applicant stated claims 1-3, 7-8, and 11-15 read on the elected Species, claims 11-12 are further withdrawn from consideration since they depend on implicitly withdrawn claim 10.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the election filed on 12 June 2026
Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 13-15 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "magnetically acting coupling elements," first introduced in claim 1:
the magnetically acting coupling elements perform the function of causing the impeller to rotate in a contactless manner as a result of magnetic interaction between the coupling elements and a rotating magnetic field and may comprise a permanent magnets, coil magnets, or a combination thereof (see for example page 7, third full paragraph; FIG. 1A-1B); or an equivalent thereof.
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 1-3, 7-8, and 13-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim language, "wherein each of the vanes has at least two action regions which are spaced apart from and flexibly connected to one another and on which forces can be exerted by means of a magnetic field, by which a relative position of the action regions with respect to one another can be varied," (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if "can" is referring to the possibility of something occurring or if the term "can" is referring to the apparatus being "configured to be" a particular way. Further, after careful review of the specification, based on the Species selected, the magnetic field forces do not act upon the action regions directly, rather it is the magnetically acting coupling elements which interact with the magnetic field/force. For purposes of examination the claim language is interpreted to be as written, however the Examiner suggests the following amendment, "wherein each of the vanes has at least two action regions which are spaced apart from and flexibly connected to one another and a relative position of the action regions with respect to one another are configured to be varied [[on which forces can be exerted by means of]] in response to forces exerted on the magnetically acting coupling elements by means of a magnetic field. [[, by which a relative position of the action regions with respect to one another can be varied.]]
NOTE: The above proposed claim language would appear to overcome the prior art rejection(s) below.
Regarding claims 2-3, 7-8, and 13-15:
Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 13-15 are rejected by virtue of dependence on a rejected claim(s).
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 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nojiri et al (US 5947703), hereafter referred to as Nojiri, in view of Melo et al (US 10533558), hereafter referred to as Melo.
Regarding Claim 1, Nojiri discloses the following:
An impeller (23, FIG. 4) of a pump (1) comprising
a plurality of vanes (25; FIG. 4),
magnetically acting coupling elements (27) disposed around an axis of rotation (z) and configured to cause the impeller (23) to rotate in a contactless manner as a result of magnetic interaction between the coupling elements (27) and a rotating magnetic field (synonymous with magnetic flux, see Col. 7, lines 25-45; FIG. 5).
Nojiri does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein each of the vanes has at least two action regions which are spaced apart from and flexibly connected to one another and on which forces can be exerted by means of a magnetic field, by which a relative position of the action regions with respect to one another can be varied.
However Melo teaches the following:
wherein each of the vanes (428; FIG. 4C) has at least two action regions (inner and outer portions of 428b; FIG. 4C) which are spaced apart from and flexibly connected (see Col. 7-8) to one another and on which forces can be exerted by means of a magnetic field (see Col. 6, lines 25-30), by which a relative position of the action regions (inner and outer portions of 428b; FIG. 4C) with respect to one another can be varied (as seen in FIG. 4C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic impeller blades as disclosed by Nojiri, with the adaptable impeller blades, as taught by Melo, with the reasonable expectation of successfully allowing the pump to have its pump curve adjusted to better fit changing process conditions including optimum power efficiency for a wider range of operation and better response to changes in fluid density (see Melo Col. 4, lines 40-45). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the impeller blade of Nojiri with the impeller blade of Melo results in the predictable result of providing an impeller with a known impeller blade (i.e. substituting one known means to provide an impeller with impeller blades for another known means to provide an impeller with impeller blades). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 2, Nojiri as modified by Melo discloses the following:
The impeller according to claim 1,
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-8, and 13-15 would appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 3:
a. the impeller comprises at least two groups of the magnetically acting coupling elements that are spaced apart in a radial direction, and
b. each of the vanes has at least two of the action regions that are spaced apart in the radial direction, to each of which at least one of the coupling elements of another of the groups is assigned by a connection between the action region and the at least one assigned coupling element or by integration of the at least one assigned coupling element into the action region,
c. with the impeller geometry being changeable by a relative movement-about the axis of rotation between the at least two groups of coupling elements;
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 14-15:
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 ultimately depend on claim 3;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Nojiri et al (US 5947703) and Melo et al (US 10533558).
The Examiner notes Melo is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar pump arrangements see Page(s) 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights