DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 07/21/2026, entered by the Request for Continued Examination of 08/12/2026, and follows the Final Rejection of 05/28/2026. Claims 1, 4 and 9-10 were amended; new claims 11-14 were added. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to drawing objections and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections of 05/28/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the amendments made to the claims.
Applicant's point on page 11 of Remarks that “Guo expressly teaches that the vanes are uniformly distributed circumferentially (Guo at col. 2, 11. 5-6), which is inconsistent with the claimed feature that the spacing between adjacent guide vanes decreases toward the suction inlet” is not found persuasive by the Examiner. The vanes being uniformly distributed circumferentially would not be inconsistent with the claimed feature that the spacing between the adjacent guide vanes decreases toward the suction inlet. As shown in figs. 6A-6B of Guo, the shrinking of the radial thickness of the central hub from bottom to top results in the main blades having a reduced spacing relative to each other in a direction toward the top (i.e. the suction inlet opening).
Applicant's point on page 12 of Remarks that “Studebaker does not disclose that the guide vanes extend into the suction inlet or into a region directly adjoining the suction inlet as required by amended Claim 1” was not found persuasive by Examiner.
Under a broadest reasonably interpretation, the blades of Studebaker can be considered to extend into the suction inlet (i.e. a suction channel). Particularly since the blades are shown to extend axially into the annular lip 50’ which does not yet have the expanding radial dimension. Alternatively, the blades could be defined in a region that is directly adjacent a suction channel or suction opening. Additionally, the claim fails to define “a suction inlet” in a manner that Studebaker does not disclose the claimed invention.
Applicant's point on page 12 of Remarks that “Studebaker further fails to disclose the claimed circumferentially increasing radial gap. The geometry shown in Studebaker is conventional and does not include a non-concentric housing that produces a progressively increasing gap around the impeller” is not found persuasive by the Examiner.
Studebaker states that “a relatively conventional casing 32 having the usual volute section therein is provided” in col. 2 lines 4-6. Since the case has a volute shape (i.e. spiral, scroll), the radial gap between the runner 20’ and the casing’s 32 inner wall would increase in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet of the impeller chamber of casing 32 given this volute shape. The change in radial gap between the inner wall and the impeller is also visible between the bottom and top of impeller 20 in fig. 1.
Applicant's point on page 12 of Remarks that “Stalker does not disclose or suggest that the guide vanes extend axially into the suction inlet or into a region directly adjoining the suction inlet, such as a suction channel” is not found persuasive by the Examiner.
Under a broadest reasonably interpretation, the blades of Stalker can be considered to extend into the suction inlet (i.e. a suction channel). Particularly since the blades are shown to basically extend axially up to the mouth of the suction inlet. Alternatively, the blades could be defined in a region that is directly adjacent a suction channel or suction opening. Additionally, the claim fails to define “a suction inlet” in a manner that Stalker does not disclose the claimed invention. Further, it is unclear to Examiner how the instant figures show this claimed aspect, as argued by Applicant on page 8 of Remarks, if fig. 1 of Stalker does not. Particularly since the blades of Stalker are shown to be relatively much to the mouth/opening of the suction inlet than the instant drawings. Stalker also does have the claimed non-uniform vane spacing as shown in fig. 2 where the spacing between adjacent blades 16 shrinks toward the inlet opening.
Applicant's point on page 13 of Remarks that “Fujii does not disclose the claimed circumferentially increasing radial gap within the pump chamber. Although Fujii
includes a volute housing in which the cross-sectional area increases circumferentially, this represents a conventional external flow-collection structure and does not correspond to the claimed variation of the radial gap between the impeller and the housing within the pump chamber itself” is not found persuasive by the Examiner.
It is unclear how the structure of Fujii, see fig. 7 for example, would not meet the claimed limitation since it appears to show all the aspects required by the claimed invention. Fujii discloses “A dimension of the radial gap between the impeller 31 and the inner wall of the upper case 21 is the smallest at a position between the edge 216 and the impeller 31 and continuously increases from the edge 216 along the rotation direction of the impeller 31” in col. 6 lines 40-44, which is analogous the radial gap limitation in the claim.
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 feature of “wherein the curvature is continuous over an entire extent from the suction inlet to the outer circumference” recited in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Currently, the instant figures do not appear to show this aspect, particularly regarding the curvature of the surfaces between adjacent blades since the surfaces 3b of the impeller 3 are shown to have straight/flat portions in regions adjacent the suction inlet and the outer circumference of the impeller 3 in instant figures 1A, 1B and 1C.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, “The radial pump stage as claimed in claim claim” should likely read “The radial pump stage as claimed in claim
Claim 14, “The radial pump stage as claimed in claim claim” should likely read “The radial pump stage as claimed in claim .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The parts of the preamble in claim 9 reciting “a sensor cleaning device for a vehicle” are not considered as limitations of the respective claims, and the claims that are dependent on the above claims, because the body of the claim does not directly include the structure of the “sensor cleaning device”. See MPEP 2111.02 [R-2] PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PUR-POSE OR INTENDED USE.
The parts of the preamble in claim 10 reciting “a vehicle” are not considered as limitations of the respective claims, and the claims that are dependent on the above claims, because the body of the claim does not directly include the structure of the “vehicle”. See MPEP 2111.02 [R-2] PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PUR-POSE OR INTENDED USE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “wherein the curvature is continuous over an entire extent from the suction inlet to the outer circumference” leads to the claim failing the written description requirement and appears to be new matter. No support in the instant specification can be found for this aspect and the instant figures at the instant effective filing date do not appear to show this aspect, particularly regarding the curvature of the surfaces between adjacent blades since the surfaces 3b of the impeller 3 are shown to have a straight/flat portions in regions adjacent the suction inlet and the outer circumference of the impeller 3 in instant figures 1A, 1B and 1C. Instant paragraph 34 discusses where the curvature of the surfaces “preferably transitions into a completely straight-lined, radial surface portion, that is to say a surface portion running perpendicularly to the rotation axis of the pump impeller”, but no mention of “the curvature being continuous over an entire extend from the suction inlet to the outer circumference” was found in the instant specification. For the reasons listed above, claim 14 fails the written description requirement and is considered new matter.
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 1-14 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 1 lines 7-18, the limitation below renders the claim indefinite:
“a plurality of guide vanes, wherein one of:
at least one of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet or
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet,
wherein a radial gap between the pump impeller and an inner wall of the pump stage housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet, and
wherein a spacing between adjacent guide vanes decreases in a direction toward the suction inlet.”
This is because the last four paragraphs of the claim are indented and listed beneath the phrase “wherein one of:”, meaning that only one of the four paragraphs which follow would need to be met by the claimed invention based upon the drafting/formatting of the claim. However, the wording of the claims makes it appear as though this is not the intent of these four paragraphs. See the “or” at the end of the fourth to last paragraph of claim 1 (line 10) and the use of “wherein” at the start of the last two paragraphs of claim 1 (lines 14 and 17). The Remarks submitted by Applicant further fail to sufficiently clarify how this claim should be interpreted given the use of the phrase “As an alternative or in addition” on page 9 of Remarks and the phrase “In addition or independently of this” on page 10 of Remarks. While later in page 10 of Remarks, Applicant's argument makes it seem that the last two paragraphs of claim 1 are required and only one of the paragraphs in claim 1 lines 8-13 is required by claim 1. For the reasons listed above, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the same reason detailed above in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 112(b). Claim 9 lines 8-19 and claim 10 lines 9-20 possessing the same limitations and issues as claim 1 lines 7-18 cited above.
Claims 2-8 and 11-14 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “an inner wall [of the pump housing]” renders the claim indefinite since an inner wall of the pump stage housing has already been introduced in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends upon. If Applicant intends for the last two paragraphs of claim 1 to be required for the claim invention and not just optional, it is unclear if this limitation in claim 3 is meant to reference back to the inner wall previously introduced or is introducing a different and distinct one.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “an outer circumference of the pump impeller” renders the claim indefinite since an outer circumference of the pump impeller has already been introduced in claim 4, from which claim 5 depends upon. It is unclear if this limitation in claim 5 is meant to reference back to the outer circumference previously introduced in claim 4 or is introducing a different and distinct one.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “an outer circumference of the pump impeller” renders the claim indefinite since an outer circumference of the pump impeller has already been introduced in claim 4, from which claim 6 depends upon. It is unclear if this limitation in claim 6 is meant to reference back to the outer circumference previously introduced in claim 4 or is introducing a different and distinct one.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “an outer circumference of the pump impeller” renders the claim indefinite since an outer circumference of the pump impeller has already been introduced in claim 4, from which claim 7 depends upon. It is unclear if this limitation in claim 7 is meant to reference back to the outer circumference previously introduced in claim 4 or is introducing a different and distinct one.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “the curvature is continuous over an entire extent from the suction inlet to the outer circumference” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 7, from which 14 depends upon, states “wherein the surfaces have a curvature in their extent from the suction inlet of the pump stage housing to an outer circumference of the pump impeller, and/or the webs have a curvature in their extent from the suction inlet of the pump stage housing to the outer circumference of the pump impeller”. As such, it is unclear which of the curvatures that claim 7 is referencing to; either the curvature of the surfaces, the curvature of the webs, or both.
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, 3, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3620642, herein referenced as Studebaker.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figures 2 and 4 of Studebaker
Regarding Claim 1, Studebaker discloses a radial pump stage (see visible cutaway cross-section in fig. 1), comprising:
a pump stage housing (comprised of casing 32 in figs. 1-2 and follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) having:
an axially arranged suction inlet (see inlet channel defined by follower plate 34’ which extends to the annular lip 50’ in fig. 4; this entire section can be considered a suction channel, analogous to a suction inlet, since the flowpath doesn’t transition towards a centrifugal/radial orientation until axially downstream of lip 50’ in fig. 4), which leads into the pump stage housing (see internal space defined by casing 32 fig. 2 and follower plate 34’ fig. 4);
and a radially arranged pressure outlet (the outlet from impeller chamber of casing 32 that leads to discharge outlet 40 coupled with casing 32 in figs. 1-2), which leads out of the pump stage housing; and
a semi-open pump impeller (see runner 20’ which is of an open-type in fig. 4) arranged in the pump stage housing (shown in fig. 4), comprising:
a plurality of guide vanes (see vanes 60 fig. 4), wherein one of:
at least one of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the vanes 60 are shown to extend in an axial direction into the suction channel in fig. 4; i.e. axially overlapping with the annular lip 50’ which defines an end of the suction channel defined by the follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the vanes 60 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of follower plate 34 in fig. 4) or
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the vanes 60 are shown to extend in an axial direction into the suction channel in fig. 4; i.e. axially overlapping with the annular lip 50’ which defines an end of the suction channel defined by the follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the vanes 60 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of follower plate 34 in fig. 4),
wherein a radial gap between the pump impeller and an inner wall of the pump stage housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet (in the volute casing 32, the radial gap between the runner/impeller 20 and the inner wall of the volute casing 32 is shown to have increase between inner wall of 32 between the top and bottom in fig. 2, this would be due to its volute shaped casing 32; “a relatively conventional casing 32 having the usual volute section therein is provided” col. 2 lines 4-6, since the case has a volute shape (i.e. spiral, scroll), the radial gap between the runner 20’ and the casing’s 32 inner wall would increase in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet of the impeller chamber of casing 32 given this volute shape), and
wherein a spacing between adjacent guide vanes decreases in a direction toward the suction inlet (given the curvature of the hub of the runner 20’ where blades 60 are provided in fig. 4, the radial thickness is shown to shrink of the hub around shaft 16’ in a direction toward in the inlet, this would mean that the spacing between adjacent vanes 60 would also decrease from left to right as the radial thickness of the hub of the runner 20’ shrinks in fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Studebaker discloses the radial pump stage as claimed in 1,
wherein the guide vanes are webs (the blades 60 are shown to form webs for the inner shroud of the runner 20’ in fig. 4) which extend along an inner wall of the pump stage housing (the blades 60 are shown to extend along the inner wall of casing 32 in figs. 2 and 4), and
wherein the inner wall is located opposite a side of the pump impeller that faces the suction inlet (the inner wall or discharge side wall of casing 32 is shown to be located opposite from the suction channel in figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Studebaker discloses the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pump stage housing (comprised of follower plate 34’ fig. 4 and casing 32 fig. 2), in a plane perpendicular to a rotation direction of the impeller, has an integrally connected parting plane or is sealed off by a sealing element (see annular seal 46 in fig. 2 which is provided in a plane perpendicular to the rotational direction and seals off the interface between casing 32 fig. 2 and follower plate 34’ fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Studebaker discloses a sensor cleaning device for a vehicle, comprising:
a radial pump stage (see visible cutaway cross-section in fig. 1) comprising:
a pump stage housing (comprised of casing 32 in figs. 1-2 and follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) having:
an axially arranged suction inlet (see inlet channel defined by follower plate 34’ which extends to the annular lip 50’ in fig. 4; this entire section can be considered a suction channel, analogous to a suction inlet, since the flowpath doesn’t transition towards a centrifugal/radial orientation until axially downstream of lip 50’ in fig. 4), which leads into the pump stage housing (see internal space defined by casing 32 fig. 2 and follower plate 34’ fig. 4);
and a radially arranged pressure outlet (the outlet from impeller chamber of casing 32 that leads to discharge outlet 40 coupled with casing 32 in figs. 1-2), which leads out of the pump stage housing; and
a semi-open pump impeller (see runner 20’ which is of an open-type in fig. 4) arranged in the pump stage housing (shown in fig. 4), comprising:
a plurality of guide vanes (see vanes 60 fig. 4), wherein one of:
at least one of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the vanes 60 are shown to extend in an axial direction into the suction channel in fig. 4; i.e. axially overlapping with the annular lip 50’ which defines an end of the suction channel defined by the follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the vanes 60 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of follower plate 34 in fig. 4) or
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the vanes 60 are shown to extend in an axial direction into the suction channel in fig. 4; i.e. axially overlapping with the annular lip 50’ which defines an end of the suction channel defined by the follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the vanes 60 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of follower plate 34 in fig. 4),
wherein a radial gap between the pump impeller and an inner wall of the pump stage housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet (in the volute casing 32, the radial gap between the runner/impeller 20 and the inner wall of the volute casing 32 is shown to have increase between inner wall of 32 between the top and bottom in fig. 2, this would be due to its volute shaped casing 32; “a relatively conventional casing 32 having the usual volute section therein is provided” col. 2 lines 4-6, since the case has a volute shape (i.e. spiral, scroll), the radial gap between the runner 20’ and the casing’s 32 inner wall would increase in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet of the impeller chamber of casing 32 given this volute shape), and
wherein a spacing between adjacent guide vanes decreases in a direction toward the suction inlet (given the curvature of the hub of the runner 20’ where blades 60 are provided in fig. 4, the radial thickness is shown to shrink of the hub around shaft 16’ in a direction toward in the inlet, this would mean that the spacing between adjacent vanes 60 would also decrease from left to right as the radial thickness of the hub of the runner 20’ shrinks in fig. 4).
Examiner Note: The parts of the preamble in claim 9 reciting “a sensor cleaning device for a vehicle” are not considered as limitations of the respective claims, and the claims that are dependent on the above claims, because the body of the claim does not directly include the structure of the “sensor cleaning device”. See MPEP 2111.02 [R-2] PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PUR-POSE OR INTENDED USE.
Regarding Claim 10, Studebaker discloses a vehicle comprising:
a sensor cleaning device (Studebaker discloses all the required limitations below related to what the “sensor cleaning device” is comprised of) comprising:
a radial pump stage (see visible cutaway cross-section in fig. 1) comprising:
a pump stage housing (comprised of casing 32 in figs. 1-2 and follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) having:
an axially arranged suction inlet (see inlet channel defined by follower plate 34’ which extends to the annular lip 50’ in fig. 4; this entire section can be considered a suction channel, analogous to a suction inlet, since the flowpath doesn’t transition towards a centrifugal/radial orientation until axially downstream of lip 50’ in fig. 4), which leads into the pump stage housing (see internal space defined by casing 32 fig. 2 and follower plate 34’ fig. 4);
and a radially arranged pressure outlet (the outlet from impeller chamber of casing 32 that leads to discharge outlet 40 coupled with casing 32 in figs. 1-2), which leads out of the pump stage housing; and
a semi-open pump impeller (see runner 20’ which is of an open-type in fig. 4) arranged in the pump stage housing (shown in fig. 4), comprising:
a plurality of guide vanes (see vanes 60 fig. 4), wherein one of:
at least one of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the vanes 60 are shown to extend in an axial direction into the suction channel in fig. 4; i.e. axially overlapping with the annular lip 50’ which defines an end of the suction channel defined by the follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the vanes 60 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of follower plate 34 in fig. 4) or
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the vanes 60 are shown to extend in an axial direction into the suction channel in fig. 4; i.e. axially overlapping with the annular lip 50’ which defines an end of the suction channel defined by the follower plate 34’ in fig. 4) or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the vanes 60 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of follower plate 34 in fig. 4),
wherein a radial gap between the pump impeller and an inner wall of the pump stage housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet (in the volute casing 32, the radial gap between the runner/impeller 20 and the inner wall of the volute casing 32 is shown to have increase between inner wall of 32 between the top and bottom in fig. 2, this would be due to its volute shaped casing 32; “a relatively conventional casing 32 having the usual volute section therein is provided” col. 2 lines 4-6, since the case has a volute shape (i.e. spiral, scroll), the radial gap between the runner 20’ and the casing’s 32 inner wall would increase in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet of the impeller chamber of casing 32 given this volute shape), and
wherein a spacing between adjacent guide vanes decreases in a direction toward the suction inlet (given the curvature of the hub of the runner 20’ where blades 60 are provided in fig. 4, the radial thickness is shown to shrink of the hub around shaft 16’ in a direction toward in the inlet, this would mean that the spacing between adjacent vanes 60 would also decrease from left to right as the radial thickness of the hub of the runner 20’ shrinks in fig. 4).
Examiner Note: The parts of the preamble in claim 10 reciting “a vehicle” are not considered as limitations of the respective claims, and the claims that are dependent on the above claims, because the body of the claim does not directly include the structure of the “vehicle”. See MPEP 2111.02 [R-2] PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PUR-POSE OR INTENDED USE.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studebaker.
Regarding Claim 11, Studebaker discloses the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 1, but fails to anticipate wherein the pressure outlet has a rectangular cross section.
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.). Similarity in the instant case, the instant specification does not state that ‘the pressure outlet having a rectangular cross section’ solves any stated problem, is for any particular purpose or establishes it as significant. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of Changes in Shape to modify Studebaker such that its pressure outlet has a rectangular cross section. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. “Changes in Shape”.
Regarding Claim 12, Studebaker as modified above comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 11, wherein the pressure outlet [opens] into a flow channel (see pipe with an extension length which leads to the discharge outlet 40 in fig. 1, this connecting the outlet from the space of volute casing 32 which houses the impeller/runner 20’ with the discharge outlet 40 in figs. 1-2) [having an extension length] (shown in fig. 1).
However Studebaker fails to teach wherein the pressure outlet has four rounded corners, a cross section of the flow channel transitions steadily from the rectangular cross section into an oval or circular cross section over an extension length of the flow channel.
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.). Similarity in the instant case, the instant specification does not state that ‘the pressure outlet has four rounded corners, a cross section of the flow channel transitions steadily from the rectangular cross section into an oval or circular cross section over an extension length of the flow channel’ solves any stated problem, is for any particular purpose or establishes it as significant. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of Changes in Shape to modify Studebaker such that its pressure outlet has four rounded corners, and a cross section of the flow channel transitions steadily from the rectangular cross section into an oval or circular cross section over an extension length of the flow channel. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. “Changes in Shape”.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studebaker, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 8047816, herein referenced as Fujii.
Regarding Claim 4, Studebaker discloses the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 3, wherein surfaces are located between the webs (surface sections of the flowpath-side of the inner shroud of runner 20’ which would be provided between adjacent vanes 60 in fig. 4), wherein the surfaces extend continuously from the suction inlet to an outer circumference of the pump impeller (the surfaces section of the flowpath-side of the inner shroud of runner 20’ provided between adjacent vanes 60 are shown to extend continuously from the inlet channel, defined by follower plate 34 which extends to the annular lip 50’ in fig. 4, to the outer circumference of runner 20’ along with vanes 60’ in fig. 4), but fails to explicitly teach the webs extend perpendicularly to the surfaces.
Studebaker and Fujii are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of pumps.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Fujii
Fujii teaches wherein the webs (blades 311 fig. 7) extend perpendicularly to the surfaces (see surfaces of impeller 31 between adjacent blades 311 in figs. 1-2 and 7; “working surface 3114 of the blade 311 of the impeller 31 of this preferred embodiment is generally straight in both the radial direction and the axial direction” col. 7 lines 38-41). Fujii further teaches that with this blade orientation, “it is possible to prevent liquid flowing along the working surface 3114 from hitting against liquid flowing between the blades 311 circumferentially adjacent to each other. This means the flowing resistance can be reduced” in col. 7 lines 41-44.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vanes of Studebaker such that they extend straight in both the radial and axial directions, as disclosed by Fujii, so as to obtain the benefit of ‘preventing liquid flowing along the blade working surface from hitting against liquid flowing between the blades circumferentially adjacent to each other, thereby reducing flowing resistance’ as taught by Fujii. This modification would mean that the vanes extend perpendicular to the surfaces.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Studebaker and Fujii comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 4,
wherein the webs have a web height measured perpendicularly to the surfaces (see height of vanes 60 measured normal to the surface(s) of the inner shroud of runner 20’ in fig. 4 of Studebaker), and
wherein the web height is configured to increase or be constant in a direction of an outer circumference of the pump impeller (the height of the vanes 60 are shown to increase in a direction toward the outer circumference of the runner 20’ in fig. 4 of Studebaker).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Studebaker and Fujii comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in claim claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach wherein an axial height of the pump impeller is between 2 and 5.5 times the web height.
Since the only difference between the prior art combination and the instant claim is the recited dimension of “wherein an axial height of the pump impeller is between 2 and 5.5 times the web height”, and it appears that a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device (the instant specification fails to present any criticality or benefit related to this limitation), it would have been an obvious matter of changes in size/proportion to modify the combination of Studebaker and Fujii such that an axial height of the pump impeller is between 2 and 5.5 times the web height. See in MPEP 2144.04. IV. A. “Changes in Size/Proportion”.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3019736, herein referenced as Stalker, in view of Fujii.
PNG
media_image3.png
365
393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 and 2 of Stalker
Regarding Claim 1, Stalker discloses a radial pump stage (see fig. 1), comprising:
a pump stage housing (case 12 fig. 1) having:
an axially arranged suction inlet (see suction inlet/channel in fig. 1), which leads into the pump stage housing;
a semi-open pump impeller (see centrifugal rotor 10 and its impeller in figs. 1-2) arranged in the pump stage housing (shown to be inside case 12 in fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of guide vanes (see blades 16 figs. 1-2), wherein one of:
at least one of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the blades 16 are shown to extend axially as far as into the suction channel/inlet, interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation, of case 12 as shown in fig. 1; also see blades 16 being aligned with the front end or hub 28 in fig. 2 which is also at the suction channel/inlet in fig. 1) or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the blades 16 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of the inlet channel in fig. 1-2) or
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the blades 16 are shown to extend axially as far as into the suction channel/inlet, interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation, of case 12 as shown in fig. 1; also see blades 16 being aligned with the front end or hub 28 in fig. 2 which is also at the suction channel/inlet in fig. 1) or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the blades 16 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of the inlet channel in fig. 1-2),
wherein a spacing between adjacent guide vanes decreases in a direction toward the suction inlet (due to the radial size of shroud 18 and distance of blades 16 from the rotation axis shrinking toward the suction inlet as shown in figs. 1-2, the spacing between blades 16 would decrease toward the suction inlet as the radial size of the shroud 18 decreases toward the suction inlet).
Stalker fails to explicitly anticipate the housing having: a radially arranged pressure outlet, which leads out of the pump stage housing; and
wherein a radial gap between the pump impeller and an inner wall of the pump stage housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet.
Stalker and Fujii are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of centrifugal pumps.
Fujii teaches a housing (see casing 21 with pump chamber 23 in fig. 7) having: a radially arranged pressure outlet (see radially arranged pump outflow port 232 fig. 7), which leads out of the pump stage housing (shown to lead to liquid outlet 212a in fig. 4); and
wherein a radial gap between the pump impeller and an inner wall of the pump stage housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet (see radial gap between the impeller 31 and the inner wall of casing 21 or pump chamber 23 which is shown to increase in a circumferential direction toward outflow port 232 in fig. 7; “A dimension of the radial gap between the impeller 31 and the inner wall of the upper case 21 is the smallest at a position between the edge 216 and the impeller 31 and continuously increases from the edge 216 along the rotation direction of the impeller 31” col. 6 lines 40-44). This disclosure from Fujii establishes that the limitations mapped above were known in the art.
The prior art discloses each of the elements claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art above being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and each element performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stalker with housing and impeller arrangement disclosed by Fujii to obtain the predictable result of a functional centrifugal pump. Further, volute/spiral housings are commonly used in the art since they direct fluid smoothly from the impeller to the outlet while minimizing hydraulic losses. See MPEP 2143 A. “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results”.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Stalker and Fujii comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in 1,
wherein the guide vanes are webs (blades 16 shown to form webs in figs. 1-2 of Stalker) which extend along an inner wall (see inner wall of casing 22 on the discharge side which extend radially along with the blades 16 in fig. 1 of Stalker) of the pump stage housing (12 fig. 1 of Stalker), and
wherein the inner wall is located opposite a side of the pump impeller that faces the suction inlet (the inner wall of casing 12 at the discharge side is provided on an opposite side of the rotor/impeller 10 that facies the suction inlet/channel in fig. 1 of Stalker).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Stalker and Fujii comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 3, wherein surfaces are located between the webs (see surfaces of shroud 18 that are disposed between adjacent blades 16 in fig. 2 of Stalker), and the webs extend perpendicularly to the surfaces (the blades 16 are shown to extend perpendicularly relative to the surfaces between adjacent blades 16 in fig. 2 of Stalker), wherein the surfaces extend continuously from the suction inlet to an outer circumference of the pump impeller (the surface sections of the shroud 18 between adjacent blades 16 are shown to extend continuously between said blades 16 from the inlet channel to the outer circumference of the impeller 10 in fig. 2 of Stalker).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Stalker and Fujii comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 4, wherein the surfaces extend completely along the webs (the surfaces of the shroud 18 between adjacent blades 16 are shown to extend completely along the blades 16 in fig. 2 of Stalker) and/or from the suction inlet of the pump stage housing as far as an outer circumference of the pump impeller (the surfaces of the shroud 18 between adjacent blades 16 is shown to extend from the suction inlet/channel as far as the outer circumference of the rotor 10 in figs. 1-2 of Stalker).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Stalker and Fujii comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 4, wherein the surfaces have a curvature in their extent from the suction inlet of the pump stage housing to an outer circumference of the pump impeller (the surfaces of the shroud between adjacent blades 16 are shown to have curvature from the suction inlet/channel to an outer circumference of the rotor 10 in figs. 1-2 of Stalker), and/or the webs have a curvature in their extent from the suction inlet of the pump stage housing to the outer circumference of the pump impeller (the blades 16 are shown to have a curvature from the suction inlet/channel to the outer circumference of the rotor 10 in fig. 1 of Stalker).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Stalker and Fujii comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in claim claim 7, wherein the curvature is continuous over an entire extent from the suction inlet to the outer circumference (the curvature of surface sections the shroud 18 between adjacent blades and/or the curvature of the blades 16 are shown to be continuous over their entire extent from the suction channel to the outer circumference of impeller 10 in fig. 1, particularly the top and a centerline of blades 16 in figs. 1-2 and 5).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10145385, herein referenced as Guo, in view of Fujii.
PNG
media_image4.png
544
417
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
488
323
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figures 2 and 6A of Guo
Regarding Claim 1, Guo discloses a radial pump stage (see pump 1 in figs. 1-2), comprising:
a pump stage housing (pump housing 10 fig. 2) having:
an axially arranged suction inlet (see suction channel which would be defined by inlet 12 fig. 1), which leads into the pump stage housing (shown in fig. 1);
and a radially arranged pressure outlet (see outlet entrance 13a figs. 1-3; also see fig. 9 which presents a pump having a single outlet 13), which leads out of the pump stage housing (housing 10 fig. 1); and
a semi-open pump impeller (see impeller 30 in figs. 2 and 6A-6B) arranged in the pump stage housing (10 fig. 2), comprising:
a plurality of guide vanes (see the three vanes 32 which extend up along the body 31 in fig. 6A), wherein one of:
at least one of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the three vanes 32 which extend along the body 31 and to the upper end of the impeller 30 in fig. 6A would extend axially as far as to the suction inlet 12 (i.e. the suction channel) in fig. 2) or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the three main vanes 32 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of the inlet 12 in fig. 1-2) or
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the of the major three vanes 32 which extend along the body 31 and to the upper end of the impeller 30 in fig. 6A would extend axially as far as to the suction inlet 12 (i.e. the suction channel) in fig. 2) or into a region of the pump stage housing that directly adjoins the suction inlet (alternatively, the three main vanes 32 can be within a defined suction side region of the flow path which directly adjoins the suction opening/mouth of the inlet 12 in fig. 1-2),
wherein a spacing between adjacent guide vanes decreases in a direction toward the suction inlet (due to the radial size of the central hub portion shrinking in a direction toward the inlet opening, see how central hub’s radial thickness decreases from bottom to top in figs. 6A-6B, the spacing the three blades 32 which extends along the body 31 to the upper end of the impeller 30 would have a decreased spacing between them as the radial thickness of the central hub shrinks away toward the inlet opening or top of the impeller in figs. 6A-6B).
However, Guo fails to anticipate wherein a radial gap between the pump impeller and an inner wall of the pump stage housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet.
Guo and Fujii are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of centrifugal pumps.
Fujii teaches a housing (see casing 21 with pump chamber 23 in fig. 7) having: a radially arranged pressure outlet (see radially arranged pump outflow port 232 fig. 7), which leads out of the pump stage housing (shown to lead to liquid outlet 212a in fig. 4); and
wherein a radial gap between the pump impeller and an inner wall of the pump stage housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet (see radial gap between the impeller 31 and the inner wall of casing 21 or pump chamber 23 which is shown to increase in a circumferential direction toward outflow port 232 in fig. 7; “A dimension of the radial gap between the impeller 31 and the inner wall of the upper case 21 is the smallest at a position between the edge 216 and the impeller 31 and continuously increases from the edge 216 along the rotation direction of the impeller 31” col. 6 lines 40-44). This disclosure from Fujii establishes that the limitations mapped above were known in the art.
The prior art discloses each of the elements claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art above being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and each element performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the housing of Guo such that a radial gap between the impeller and the inner wall of the pump housing increases in a circumferential direction toward the pressure outlet, as disclosed by Fujii, to obtain the predictable result of a functional centrifugal pump. Further, volute/spiral housings are commonly used in the art since they direct fluid smoothly from the impeller to the outlet while minimizing hydraulic losses. See MPEP 2143 A. “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results”.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Guo and Fujii comprises the radial pump stage as claimed in claim 1, wherein the guide vanes, as seen from the suction inlet, extend in a straight line from a shaft hub (the three major vanes 32 are shown to extend in a straight line from the impeller hub in fig. 6A of Guo) of the pump impeller to an outer circumference of the pump impeller (the major vanes 32 are shown to extend all the way to the outer circumference of the impeller 30 in fig. 6A of Guo).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4971519, US 4834547 and US 5078573 – disclose of centrifugal pumps where the vanes/blades of the impeller extend axially well beyond the inlet mouth of the pump housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights