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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/05/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the impeller" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the impeller" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the impeller" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In these claims, it appears that this impeller is the same impeller mentioned as “an impeller” later in the claim. To establish proper antecedent basis, line 3 should be amended to “an impeller” while the next mention should be “the impeller” for clarity.
The remaining claims are also rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
PNG
media_image1.png
521
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the new limitations in independent claims 1, 12 and 17 that state that the fluid outlets are orthogonal to the fluid inlet, the support for this only appears in Figures 1-2 that show the fluid inlet (36) broadly orthogonal to the fluid outlets (38, 39). However, applicant has stated in the remarks dated 10/05/26 that support for this amendment can be found in paragraph [0023] and Figures 2-3 but these sections do not fully support the narrow interpretation submitted in the remarks. Applicant states on page 8 of the remarks: “The Applicant respectfully submits that the geometric definition of the term orthogonal refers to intersecting lines or vectors that form right angles, i.e., 90 degrees.” However, from Figures 1-2 it is hard to ascertain if any of the lines passing through the inlet (36) in the axial direction intersect at 90 degrees with the lines passing radially though either of the outlets (38, 39). As seen in these Figures, the inlet is radially inwards of the outlets and so any lines passing through the inlet and parallel to the walls of the inlet and any lines passing through the outlet(s) and parallel to the outlet walls do not appear to intersect with each other. At best, a vertical plane in which the fluid inlet is located can orthogonally intersect with a horizontal plane in which the fluid outlets are located. For the purposes of examination, this broader interpretation of orthogonally intersecting planes is being used.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (WO 2009/070565) in view of Blad et al. (herein Blad) (US 2020/0072238).Regarding Claim 1:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses a pump assembly (10) comprising: a pump housing (42) having a pump cavity (50); a fluid inlet (46) positioned along a rotational axis (axis A in Figure 1 corresponds to the rotational axis as evident from Figure 2) of the impeller (24) conveying fluid into the pump cavity; a plurality of fluid outlet ports (two outlet ports shown in splitter 102 that splits the flow from outlet 48 into two passages, see paragraph [0029]. Henceforth referred to as 102) axially offset from each other extending from the pump housing (as seen in Figure 6, the two fluid outlet ports in 102 are axially offset from each other by a wall 100 between the two outlet ports), wherein each fluid outlet port (102) is positioned orthogonally to the fluid inlet (as seen in Figure 1, each outlet port is orthogonal to the fluid inlet); an impeller (24) for driving the fluid in the pump cavity (known function of the impeller 24); and a valve member (52) rotatably mounted between the impeller (24) and the plurality of fluid outlet ports (102) having a single opening (54) for selectively directing the flow of fluid from the pump cavity (50) to one or more of the plurality of fluid outlet ports (as described in paragraph [0029]).Wade fails to disclose that the plurality of fluid outlet ports (102) are axially offset at right angles from one another extending from the pump housing.However, in Figure 5, Blad discloses a similar pump assembly wherein a plurality of fluid outlet ports (38, 40, 42, 44) are axially offset from one another at right angles as they extend from a housing (12, see paragraph [0079]). It is extremely well known in the art that fluid outlet ports can be arranged in any manner in order to provide fluid flow in the desired flow direction to an end user. Hence, based on Blad’s teachings and common knowledge in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged Wade’s fluid outlet ports (102) such that they were at right angles to one another (for instance by rearranging one port 102 to be angled at 90° with respect to the wall 100 and the other port 102, in the orientation shown by Blad), since doing so would allow for redirection of flow from the housing (42) in the desired direction and would allow for connection to other downstream components at the desired angle.
Regarding Claim 2:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses a pump assembly (10), wherein the valve member (52) includes an annular wall (56) with at least one opening (i.e., the single opening 54 mentioned above in claim 1) extending through the wall (see Figure 6), the opening selectively aligning one or more of the plurality of fluid outlet ports with the pump cavity (as described in paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 3:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the valve member wall (56) has an interior surface (56b) that is spirally voluted (volute 56 has a spiral inner diameter surface as mentioned in paragraph [0021] and best seen in Figure 6) from a thicker wall section at a first end (thicker at wall section 106 as seen in Figure 6 and represented by the shaded region in Figure A below) to a thinner wall section at a second end (thinner at wall section 104 as seen in Figure 6 and represented by the shaded region in Figure A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
558
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the impeller (24) is arranged to rotate inside the valve member voluted interior surface (56b) directing the flow of fluid through the opening (54) from the pump cavity (as seen in Figure 6).Regarding Claim 5:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), further comprising an actuation ring (66) mounted to the valve member (mounted to the valve member 52 via magnetic ring assembly 58 and pump housing 42) the actuation ring causing movement of the valve member (see paragraph [0025]).Regarding Claim 6:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the actuation ring (66) includes a gear band (70).Regarding Claim 7:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), further comprising an actuator motor (80) having a worm gear (84) engaged with the gear band (70) the actuator motor driving the actuation ring (66) to rotate the valve member (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).Regarding Claim 8:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the plurality of fluid outlet ports (102) includes at least a first fluid outlet port (upper passage, see paragraph [0029]) and a second fluid outlet port (lower passage, see paragraph [0029]) and the actuator motor (80) drives the valve member to rotatably move the valve member between a first position that closes the first fluid outlet port with the valve member wall positioning the valve member opening between the pump cavity and the second fluid outlet port (regarding the first position, as mentioned in paragraph [0029]: “However, the actuator 80 may selectively rotate the actuation ring 66 clockwise relative to Figure 6 to change the flow. For example, a clockwise rotation causes a side 104 of the circumferential opening 54 to abut the wall 100 such that all of the flow from the pump assembly 10 is diverted through the lower passage of the splitter 102 and prevented from flowing through the upper passage.”) and a second position that closes the second fluid outlet port with the valve member wall and positions the valve member opening between the pump cavity and the first fluid outlet port (regarding the second position, as mentioned in paragraph [0029]: “Alternatively, the actuator 80 may rotate the actuation ring 66 in an opposite direction to thereby cause the volute 56 to rotate counter-clockwise. In this case, the other side 106 of the circumferential opening 54 abuts against the wall 100 such that the flow is diverted entirely through the upper passage of the splitter 102 and prevented from flowing through the lower passage.”).Regarding Claim 9:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the valve member (52) is rotatably movable to a third position (third position depicted in Figure 6) that positions the valve member opening between the first fluid outlet port and the second fluid outlet port (as mentioned in paragraph [0029]: “Referring to Figure 6, the circumferential opening 54 of the volute 56 is circumferentially aligned with the outlet section 48 of the pump housing 42. In this example, a wall 100 of a splitter 102 splits the flow from the outlet 48 into two passages. In the illustrated position, the circumferential opening 54 is oriented such that the flow is split about equally between the two passages.”).Regarding Claim 10:Wade substantially discloses all the claimed elements but fails to disclose a third fluid outlet port and a fourth fluid outlet port. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Additionally in Figures 7-8, Wade discloses another embodiment wherein two outlet ports (110a and 110b) are arranged diametrically opposite one another. As Wade discloses splitting an outlet port (48) into two separate flow passages using a splitter (102) one can easily conceive that the two diametrically opposite ports (110a/110b) can each have a respective splitter installed in them such that each port would be split into two separate ports. Doing so would create four separate ports. Hence, based on Wade’s teachings and the cited case law, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to duplicate Wade’s existing fluid outlet ports (port 48 with splitter 102 dividing it into two outlet ports) into another set of two outlet ports (in the manner described above), since doing so would involve obvious duplication of parts and would allow the end user to divert flow into one or more of the four outlet ports. After said modification was made, the actuator motor could drive the valve member to rotatably move the valve member between a fourth position that closes the first fluid outlet port, the second fluid outlet port and the third fluid outlet port with the valve member wall positioning the valve member opening between the pump cavity and the fourth fluid outlet port (as easily conceived based on Wade’s teachings in paragraph [0029], the valve member 52 would be moved to a fourth position blocking the first, second and third fluid outlet ports and opening only the fourth outlet port. This would be similar to the first position described in the rejection of claim 8 above) and a fifth position that closes the first fluid outlet port, the second fluid outlet port and the fourth fluid outlet port with the valve member wall positioning the valve member opening between the pump cavity and the third fluid outlet port (as easily conceived based on Wade’s teachings in paragraph [0029], the valve member 52 would be moved to a fifth position blocking the first, second and fourth fluid outlet ports and opening only the fourth outlet port. This would be similar to the second position described in the rejection of claim 8 above).NOTE: All the fluid outlet ports could be arranged at right angles to one another in the manner discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding Claim 11:After the modification (see rejection of claim 10), the valve member could be rotatably movable to a sixth position positioning the valve member opening between the third fluid outlet port and the fourth fluid outlet port (as described in the rejection of claim 9 and shown in Figure 6, the sixth position would be similar to the third position mentioned in claim 9, wherein the valve member opening would be partially between the third fluid outlet port and the fourth fluid outlet port, thereby allowing flow to both the third and fourth fluid outlet ports similar to what is shown in Figure 6).Regarding Claim 12:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses a pump assembly (10) comprising: a pump housing (42) having a pump cavity (50); a fluid inlet (46) positioned along a rotational axis of the impeller (axis A in Figure 1 corresponds to the rotational axis as evident from Figure 2) conveying fluid into the pump cavity (50); a first fluid outlet port (upper passage, see paragraph [0029]) and a second fluid outlet port (lower passage, see paragraph [0029]) extending from the pump housing (see Figure 6) orthogonally to the fluid inlet (as seen in Figure 1); an impeller (24) for driving the fluid in the pump cavity (known function of the impeller 24); and a valve member (52) rotatably mounted between the impeller and the first fluid outlet port and the second fluid outlet port (as seen in Figure 6), the valve member (52) having a single opening (54) that can be positioned between the first fluid outlet port and the second fluid outlet port (as seen positioned in Figure 6, based on the orientation of the single opening 54, it is between an outer wall of the first port and an outer wall of the second port).Wade fails to disclose that the first fluid outlet port and the second fluid outlet port are axially offset at a right angle from one another extending from the pump housing.However, in Figure 5, Blad discloses a similar pump assembly wherein a plurality of fluid outlet ports (38, 40, 42, 44) are axially offset from one another at right angles as they extend from a housing (12, see paragraph [0079]). It is extremely well known in the art that fluid outlet ports can be arranged in any manner in order to provide fluid flow in the desired flow direction to an end user. Hence, based on Blad’s teachings and common knowledge in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged Wade’s fluid outlet ports (102) such that they were at right angles to one another (for instance by rearranging second fluid outlet port to be angled at 90° with respect to the wall 100 and the second fluid outlet, in the orientation shown by Blad), since doing so would allow for redirection of flow from the housing (42) in the desired direction and would allow for connection to other downstream components at the desired angle.Regarding Claim 13:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the valve member wall (56) has an interior surface (56b) that is spirally voluted (volute 56 has a spiral inner diameter surface as mentioned in paragraph [0021] and best seen in Figure 6) from a thicker wall section at a first end (thicker at wall section 106 as seen in Figure 6 and represented by the shaded region in Figure A above) to a thinner wall section at a second end (thinner at wall section 104 as seen in Figure 6 and represented by the shaded region in Figure A above).Regarding Claim 14:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the impeller (24) is arranged to rotate inside the valve member voluted interior surface directing the flow of fluid through the first fluid outlet port and/or the second fluid outlet port from the pump cavity (depending on the position of the valve member, the fluid would be guided out of the respective fluid outlet ports as explained in paragraph [0029]).Note: Assuming arguendo that this refers to two openings in the valve member then the claim would have to be amended to say so and it is noted that parent claim 12 only defines a single opening in the valve member. Regarding Claim 15:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), further comprising an actuation ring (66) mounted to the valve member (mounted to the valve member 52 via magnetic ring assembly 58 and pump housing 42) the actuation ring causing movement of the valve member (see paragraph [0025]) and wherein the actuation ring (66) includes a gear band (70).Regarding Claim 16:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), further comprising an actuator motor (80) having a worm gear (84) engaged with the gear band (70) the actuator motor driving the actuation ring (66) to rotate the valve member (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).Regarding Claim 17:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses a pump assembly (10) comprising: a pump housing (42) having a pump cavity (50) and a wall (outer wall of 42); a fluid inlet (46) positioned along a rotational axis of the impeller (axis A in Figure 1 corresponds to the rotational axis as evident from Figure 2) conveying fluid into the pump cavity (50); a first fluid outlet port (upper passage, see paragraph [0029]) and a second fluid outlet port (lower passage, see paragraph [0029]) extending from the wall of the pump housing (see Figure 6) orthogonally to the fluid inlet (see Figure 1), and wherein centers of the first fluid outlet port and the second fluid outlet port are oriented at an angle with respect to one another (as seen in Figure 6, the center of the first fluid outlet port is separated by an angle from the center of the second fluid outlet port by a wall 100); an impeller (24) for driving the fluid in the pump cavity (known function of the impeller 24); and a valve member (52) rotatably mounted between the impeller and the first fluid outlet port and the second fluid outlet port (as seen in Figure 6) for selectively directing the flow of fluid from the pump cavity to one or more of the plurality of fluid outlet ports (as described in paragraph [0029]).Wade fails to disclose that the first fluid outlet port and the second fluid outlet port are oriented at orthogonal angles with respect to one another. Wade fails to disclose that the plurality of fluid outlet ports (102) are axially offset at right angles from one another extending from the pump housing.However, in Figure 5, Blad discloses a similar pump assembly wherein a plurality of fluid outlet ports (38, 40, 42, 44) are axially offset from one another at orthogonal angles as they extend from a housing (12, see paragraph [0079]). It is extremely well known in the art that fluid outlet ports can be arranged in any manner in order to provide fluid flow in the desired flow direction to an end user. Hence, based on Blad’s teachings and common knowledge in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged Wade’s fluid outlet ports such that they were at an orthogonal angle to one another (for instance by rearranging second fluid outlet port to be angled at 90° with respect to the wall 100 and the first fluid outlet port, in the orientation shown by Blad), since doing so would allow for redirection of flow from the housing (42) in the desired direction and would allow for connection to other downstream components at the desired angle.Regarding Claim 18:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the valve member (52) includes an annular wall (56) with at least one opening (54) extending through the wall (see Figure 6), the opening selectively aligning one or more of the first fluid outlet port and the second fluid outlet port with the pump cavity (as described in paragraph [0029]).Regarding Claim 19:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the valve member wall (56) has an interior surface (56b) that is spirally voluted (volute 56 has a spiral inner diameter surface as mentioned in paragraph [0021] and best seen in Figure 6) from a thicker wall section at a first end (thicker at wall section 106 as seen in Figure 6 and represented by the shaded region in Figure A above) to a thinner wall section at a second end (thinner at wall section 104 as seen in Figure 6 and represented by the shaded region in Figure A above).Regarding Claim 20:In Figures 1-6 Wade discloses the pump assembly (10), wherein the impeller (24) is arranged to rotate inside the valve member voluted interior surface directing the flow of fluid through the opening from the pump cavity (as seen in Figure 6 and mentioned in paragraph [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 12 and 17, the applicant has argued that the combination of Wade in view of Blad does not teach the newly added limitations of the fluid outlets being positioned orthogonally to the fluid inlet. Specifically, the applicant has argued that Blad has an inlet (36) that is not positioned along a rotational axis of the impeller and so it not orthogonal to Blad’s outlets (38, 40, 42 and 44). However, this argument is irrelevant since Blad’s teachings are in no way being used to modify the existing position of Wade’s fluid inlet (46). As indicated above in the updated rejections of these claims, Wade has a fluid inlet (46) that is orthogonal to the fluid outlets (102). In other words, the applicant has appeared to incorrectly consider the teachings of Blad to establish the position of the fluid inlet which is already taught by Wade’s primary reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). In this case, the applicant is requested to carefully considered the updated rejection that clearly shows that Wade’s fluid outlets are arranged orthogonally to Wade’s fluid inlet.
Due to these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
