DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 01/12/2026 following the Non-Final Rejection of 10/02/2025. Claims 1 and 9-10 were amended. Claims 1-10 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 01/12/2026, with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections of 10/02/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amendments made to the claims.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes that the amendments made to claim 10 do not align with what was previously presented. The end of claim 10 previously stated “the plurality of guide vanes, wherein at least one of the plurality of guide vanes or all of the plurality of guide vanes extend axially” but this is not reflected in the most recent claims set. The claims are being examined as currently presented.
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 aspect of claims 1, 9 and 10 requiring “at least one of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet or all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is unclear if instant figures show this aspect or not. This is because the suction inlet 5a, as labeled in fig. 1A, is shown to be above the axial extension of the vanes 3a and doesn’t appear to overlap/insect with each other. This leads to the question of what is considered/understood to be the suction inlet given the instant drawings. No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 10, the section from lines 14-26 of said claim (starting with “and/or the radial pump stage comprising:”) appears to be merely repeating limitations previously established and should likely be removed. This section being indented under “a sensor cleaning device comprising:” similarly with the limitations from lines 3-13 starting with “a radial pump stage comprising”. This interpretation is based upon the formatting/indentation of the limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, in the Remarks filed 01/12/2026, Applicant's states that “With respect to claim 10, the vehicle comprises either a sensor cleaning device, a radial pump stage, or both a sensor cleaning device and a radial pump stage”. This is not how the limitations of claim 10 are presented; based upon the formatting and indentation as presented. Claim 10 requires “a vehicle comprising: a sensor cleaning device”, the sensor cleaning device comprises: a radial pump stage and/or the radial pump stage (with all the same limitations previously recited by claim in lines 2-13).
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 § 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) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10145385, herein referenced as Guo.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
323
media_image2.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 (12 fig. 1), which leads into the pump stage housing (shown in fig. 1);
and a radially arranged pressure outlet (13 figs. 1-2), 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
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).
Regarding Claim 2, Guo discloses 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 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).
Regarding Claim 9, Guo discloses a sensor cleaning device for a vehicle, comprising:
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 12 fig. 1), which leads into the pump stage housing (shown in fig. 1);
and a radially arranged pressure outlet (13 figs. 1-2), 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
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the three larger 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).
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, Guo discloses a vehicle comprising:
a sensor cleaning device (Guo discloses all the required limitations below related to what the “sensor cleaning devices” is comprised of) comprising:
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 12 fig. 1), which leads into the pump stage housing (shown in fig. 1);
and a radially arranged pressure outlet (13 figs. 1-2), 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
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in an axial direction into the suction inlet (the three larger 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).
and/or
the radial pump stage comprising:
the pump stage housing (pump housing 10 fig. 2) having:
the axially arranged suction inlet (see inlet 12 fig. 1 which leads into housing 10), which leads into the pump stage housing;
and the radially arranged pressure outlet (13 figs. 1-2), which leads out of the pump stage housing (housing 10 fig. 1); and
the semi-open pump impeller (see impeller 30 in figs. 2 and 6A-6B) arranged in the pump stage housing,
comprising:
the plurality of guide vanes (see the three vanes 32 which extend up along the body 31 in fig. 6A), wherein one of:
the at least one of the plurality of guide vanes extend in the axial direction into the suction inlet (see 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
all of the plurality of guide vanes extend in the axial direction into the suction inlet (the three larger 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).
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(s) 1, 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3620642, herein referenced as Studebaker.
PNG
media_image3.png
610
427
media_image3.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 (see discharge outlet 40 coupled with casing 32 in fig. 1), 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) 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).
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).
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) 4-5 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), 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_image4.png
494
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Studebaker
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
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).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3019736, herein referenced as Stalker.
PNG
media_image5.png
365
393
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figures 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
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).
While the rotor 10 shows a radial exit within case 12, Stalker fails to explicitly anticipate the housing having: a radially arranged pressure outlet, which leads out of the pump stage housing.
Examiner is taking official notice that it is well known in the art to provide a radially arranged pressure outlet for centrifugal/radial pumps. This is particularly typical of centrifugal/radial pumps since the impeller discharges fluid radially/centrifugally. 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 to have a radially arranged pressure outlet leading out of the pump stage housing as is well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide this type of outlet for centrifugal/radial type pump since the impeller discharges fluid radially/centrifugally. See MPEP 2144.03 - Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or “Well Known” Prior Art.
Regarding Claim 3, Stalker as modified above 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) 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 the pump stage housing (12 fig. 1), 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).
Regarding Claim 4, Stalker as modified above 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), 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Stalker as modified above 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) 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Stalker as modified above 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), 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2469458, US 2178405, US 7563074, US 3131236, US 2398203 and US 12486854 – disclose radial pumps where the blades extent axially to or beyond a suction channel/inlet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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