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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 4/7/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Examiner notes the IDS filed on 4/7/2025 appears to be a copy of the IDS filed in Application No. 17,021,004 and 18/607,621.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/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 phrase "of the type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "of the type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "blades" in line 1 and claim 7 recites the limitation “at least one blade” in line 1. It is unclear if this language refers to the set of blades recited in claim 1, line 17, or additional blades. For examination purposes, “blades” in claim 4, line 1, is interpreted to read –blades of the set of blades—and “at least one blade” in claim 7, line 1, is interpreted to read –at least one blade of the set of blades--.
Any remaining dependent claim(s) are indefinite insofar as they depend on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le (US 10278894).
Regarding claim 1, Le discloses a pump for use with a spa, the spa being of the type having:
a basin (SET) for containing water (see Fig. 23);
a motor (202) mounted exteriorly of the basin and having a rotating element (950) defining an axis (see Fig. 23-25);
a drive hub (209) disposed exteriorly of the basin and coupled to the rotating element for movement therewith (see Fig. 11 and 23-25), the drive hub having magnetic properties (col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6, l. 3);
the pump comprising:
a housing (120, 140) disposed in use in an interior (interior of SET) of the basin adjacent the drive hub (see Fig. 1, 11, and 23) and having a first side (120) and a second side (140), the first side presenting towards and abutting the basin (see Fig. 1-7, 10-11, and 23) and the second side opposed in orientation to the first side (see Fig. 1-7, 10-11, and 23), the housing defining:
a cavity (cavity formed between 120 and 140) formed between the first side and the second side having a center (center of the cavity formed between 120 and 140) and a periphery (periphery of the cavity formed between 120 and 140);
an intake (136) in the second side that communicates with the center of the cavity (see Fig. 1-7 and 10-11);
one or more ports (136) defined in the second side and communicating with the periphery (see Fig. 1-7 and 10-11);
an impeller (170, 181, 183) defining a plane and being mounted in a recess (132) of the cavity, the impeller having a set of blades (178) projecting away from the plane (see Fig. 1, 8-9, and 11), the set of blades being adapted, upon rotation of the impeller in the recess, to draw water through the intake and eject water through the one or more ports (col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6, l. 3); and
wherein the impeller has a first portion (170, 181) that is ferromagnetic (col. 5, ll. 29-64) and a second portion (183) that is not ferromagnetic (col. 5, ll. 29-64), the first portion and the second portion defining a multilayer structure with at least partial overlap therebetween (see Fig. 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 2, Le discloses wherein the first portion and the second portion are both circular (see Fig. 1, 8-9, and 11).
Regarding claim 3, Le discloses wherein the first portion and the second portion are laminated together (Examiner notes “laminated” is not defined by the originally filed Specification; the first and second portions of Le meet the limitation of “laminated” as the first and second portions of Le are shown as layered and bonded together; see Fig. 1, 8-9, and 11).
Regarding claim 8, Le discloses wherein the first portion and the second portion are coaxial (see Fig. 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 10, Le discloses wherein the second portion has a central aperture (184).
Regarding claim 11, Le discloses a pintle (150) secured through the central aperture (see Fig. 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 12, Le discloses wherein the second portion is rotatably positioned within the recess (see Fig. 1 and 11).
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(s) 4-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US 10278894) in view of Konstantakis (US 20150352004).
Regarding claim 4, Le discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
Le further discloses wherein the first portion is a disc (172, 176, 181) with blades (178) projecting from a plane (plane of 172) defined by the disc (see Fig. 8-9); however, Le does not disclose the first portion is a stamped steel disc with blades projecting from a plane defined by the stamped steel disc as claimed.
Konstantakis discloses a water jet assembly wherein components of the jet assembly can be manufactured from stamped alloy materials such as steel (¶ 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first portion of Le, to be a stamped steel disc as claimed, as taught by Konstantakis, since it was known in the art to use stamped alloy materials such as steel in a jet assembly (¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 5, the combination above and specifically Le further discloses wherein the blades extend to an outer edge (edge between 172 and 176) of the stamped steel (as modified by Konstantakis above) disc (see Fig. 8-9).
Regarding claim 7, the combination above discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 4.
The combination above does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one blade is disposed at an angle B of about 30° to a radius of the stamped steel disc as claimed.
However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed angle presents a novel or unexpected result. See MPEP § 2144.05(III). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the at least one blade of Le to perform equally well as Applicant's. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Le, to have the angle as claimed, since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Le discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
Le further discloses the second portion may be made or manufactured of any material that is known in the art (col. 5, ll. 50-64); however, Le does not explicitly disclose the second portion is formed of aluminum as claimed.
Konstantakis discloses a water jet assembly wherein components of the jet assembly can be manufactured from stamped alloy materials such as aluminum (¶ 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second portion of Le, to be formed of aluminum as claimed, as taught by Konstantakis, since it was known in the art to use stamped alloy materials such as aluminum in a jet assembly (¶ 0029).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US 10278894) in view of Konstantakis (US 20150352004) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Brady (US 2542896).
Regarding claim 6, the combination above discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 5.
However, Le does not explicitly disclose wherein the blades are bent from the plane defined by the stamped steel disc as claimed.
Brady discloses a pump assembly wherein the blades (30) are bent from the plane (plane of 29) defined by the stamped disc (29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blades of Le, to be bent from the plane defined by the disc as claimed, as taught by Brady, since it was known in the art to use sheet metal to eliminate the need for castings (col. 1, ll. 4-12) and by using stamped-out blades to bend outwardly from the plate, there is no deleterious effect upon pump efficiency resulting from the apertures in the plate (col. 1, l. 46 - col. 2, l. 14).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11951069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 and 7-9 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-6 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11951069.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12268649. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12268649.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giardini (US 3932069) is directed to the state of the art as disclosing a motor pump (10) including a disc (40) made from a nonmagnetic material and ferromagnetic elements (42) made from laminated steel with the length and width dimensions of the laminations extending in the axial and radial directions (col. 3, ll. 4-37).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KLOTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11AM-5PM.
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, David P Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/WILLIAM R KLOTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights