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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 10, the end of the claim uses a “;” instead of a “.”; in claim 15, line 1, the phrase “the opening the” should be changed to “the opening of the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and its dependents 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, line 27 recites that the casing includes a “flattened bottom”. However, claim 8 recites that the casing includes “a flat bottom surface of exactly two flat regions of contact comprising a first exterior flange and a second exterior flange”. Examiner is unsure how to group the “flattened bottom” of claim 1 and “a flat bottom surface” of claim 8. Are these “bottoms” one and the same or different? Examiner requests clarification/amendments and will interpret them as the same for purposes of this examination. Additionally, claims 12-13 each recite the limitation "the co-ordinate operation". However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and Examiner requests clarification and/or a corrective amendment.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,091 (‘091). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, ‘091 discloses pump unit comprising a casing including a first pedestal casing (claim 1), a second pedestal casing (claim 1), a first motor casing (claim 1), a second motor casing (claim 1), a suction flange and a discharge flange (claim 1); a first pump within the casing and hydraulically fed from the suction flange (claim 1); a first shaft within the first pedestal casing (claim 1); a first pair of removable covers positioned at opposing sides of the first pedestal casing for accessing the first shaft (claim 1); a first motor within the first motor casing (claim 1); a second pump within the casing and hydraulically fed from the suction flange and provides a parallel hydraulic path to the first pump (claim 1), wherein the discharge flange is hydraulically fed from the first pump and the second pump (claim 1); a second shaft within the second pedestal casing (claim 1); a second pair of removable covers positioned at opposing sides of the second pedestal casing for accessing the second shaft (claim 1); a second motor within the second motor casing (claim 1); a first touchscreen attached to the first motor casing for input and/or output in association with the first pump (claim 1); a first controller for controlling operation of the first touchscreen and the first pump (claim 1); a second touchscreen attached to the second motor casing for input and/or output in association with the second pump (claim 1); a second controller for controlling operation of the second touchscreen and the second pump (claim 1), and a flap valve which hydraulically connects the first pump and the second pump to the discharge flange (claim 1), wherein the pump unit is a vertical inline split-coupled unit (claim 1), wherein in a vertical orientation the casing is substantially vertically symmetrical and includes a flattened bottom (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, ‘091 discloses that the first controller and the second controller are configured to respectively control the first pump and the second pump in any symmetrical or asymmetrical range of parallel flow operation of the first pump and the second pump (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, ‘091 discloses that the first controller and the second controller are configured to respectively control the first pump and the second pump in a range of 0% to 100% of motor speed (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, ‘091 discloses that the first touchscreen and/or the second touchscreen is configured for respective commissioning and/or setup of the first pump and/or the second pump (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, ‘091 discloses that hydraulic characteristics of the casing and each pump provide hydraulically identical net flow and head pressure upon identical speed rotation of the first pump and the second pump (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, ‘091 discloses that hydraulic characteristics of the casing and each pump provide hydraulically identical and opposite rotational paths upon identical speed rotation of the first pump and the second pump (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, ‘091 discloses a co-ordination module configured to co-ordinate operation of the first motor and the second motor (claim 1).
Claims 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,091 (‘091) in view of Lowara FCTS4 pump brochure from 2012 (hereafter “Lowara” and accessible at https://fortek.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fcfct-td-en.pdf).
Claim 8: ‘091 discloses the previous limitations. ‘091 is not explicit about the pump unit casing having a flat bottom surface of exactly two flat regions of contact comprising a first exterior flange and a second exterior flange, wherein the suction flange and the discharge flange are floating and above the first exterior flange and the second exterior flange when the pump unit is vertically oriented. However, Lowara teaches a casing bottom having a flat bottom surface of exactly two flat regions of contact comprising a first exterior flange and a second exterior flange (see Figure below, on page 122), wherein the suction flange and the discharge flange are floating and above the first exterior flange and the second exterior flange when the pump unit is vertically oriented (which arrangement can be appreciated from observation of other mounting arrangements, e.g., page 116, in which the suction/discharge flanges are floating above the exterior flanges). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a bottom surface as taught by Lowara into the ‘091 apparatus in order to allow for a simple, balanced base to support the pump apparatus in the installed state.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9: ‘091 and Lowara teach the previous limitations. Lowara further teaches that the first exterior flange has a first flattened surface and extends lower than the suction flange and the discharge flange when the pump unit is vertically oriented, and wherein the second exterior flange which has a second flattened surface and extends lower than the suction flange and the discharge flange when the pump unit is vertically oriented (as can be appreciated from disclosures on pages 116 and 122 and the discussion with respect to claim 8).
Claim 10: ‘091 and Lowara teach the previous limitations. Lowara further teaches that the first exterior flange and the second exterior flange are horizontally aligned when the pump unit is vertically oriented (see Figure above, page 122), so that the first exterior flange and the second exterior flange collectively provide the flat bottom surface (see Figure above, page 122).
Claims 12-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,091 (‘091) in view of Lowara FCTS4 pump brochure from 2012 (hereafter “Lowara” and accessible at https://fortek.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fcfct-td-en.pdf) and in further view of Greitzke (EP735273A1).
Claims 12-13: ‘091 and Lowara teach the previous limitations. Modified ‘091 is not explicit about a co-ordinate operation includes disabling only one of the first motor or the second motor for inspection/maintenance while simultaneously operating the other of the first motor or the second motor. However, Greitzke teaches a two pump / two controller arrangement (see Fig. 1, note individualized controllers 5) in which each of the controllers can operate and disable their respective motor/pump via a control interface to a higher-level control system (note 4, see also English translation of Greitzke, paragraphs 25-26; Examiner noting that this arrangement is in line with Applicant's disclosure in Fig. 6, and paragraphs 127-128). With one pump being shut down and another operating, an operator would be able to perform maintenance/inspection on the disabled pump/motor. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a control arrangement as taught by Greitzke into the apparatus of ‘091 to allow for the pumps to be regulated independently between standstill and running operations (see paragraph 1 in Greitzke).
Claims 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,091 (‘091) in view of Lowara FCTS4 pump brochure from 2012 (hereafter “Lowara” and accessible at https://fortek.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fcfct-td-en.pdf) and Greitzke (EP735273A1) and Armstrong Seal Change “ASC” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-NWMKbcVE, dated November 22, 2011) and in further view of Golden (US 7,980,833)
Claims 14-15: ‘091, Lowara and Greitzke teach the previous limitations. Modified ‘091 further teaches about maintenance (see claims 8-9) but is not explicit about opening a removable cover to perform the seal maintenance. However, ASC teaches seal maintenance on a first motor without removing the first pump and by opening a removable cover of the first pair of removable covers (Examiner noting screen shots of the cover removal at 2:09 and seal removal/replacement around 4:29 on the pump) and performing the opening the removable cover and performing the seal maintenance (note screenshots below. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to perform maintenance like that taught in ASC in ‘091 in order to assess the health of the pump after a particular service period and replace damaged/worn parts. While not explicit about seal maintenance on a first motor without removing the first pump, such teachings are well known in the art as made manifest by Golden which teaches maintenance on a pump that includes seal (124) maintenance without entirely removing the associated pump (see col. 1, lines 15-18 and Figures 3-4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to perform maintenance like that taught in modified ‘091 in order to assess the health of the pump after a particular service period and replace damaged/worn parts.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
604
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
423
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (Intelligent Variable Speed Pumps Brochure, August 2015) in view of Englesson (US 3,183,838) and Magyar (US20140250580) and in further view of Armstrong Seal Change “ASC” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-NWMKbcVE, dated November 22, 2011).
Claim 1: Armstrong discloses a pump unit (see Figure below) comprising a casing including a first pedestal casing (see Figure below), a second pedestal casing (see Figure below), a first motor casing (see Figure below), a second motor casing (see Figure below), a suction flange (note suction flange below) and a discharge flange (see brochure model 4302 depiction on second to last page which depicts suction/discharge flange); a first pump within the casing and hydraulically fed from the suction flange (see Figure below); a first shaft within the first pedestal casing (see Figure below); a first motor within the first motor casing (see Figure below); a second pump within the casing and hydraulically fed from the suction flange and provides a parallel hydraulic path to the first pump (see Figure below), wherein the discharge flange is hydraulically fed from the first pump and the second pump (see brochure model 4302 depiction on second to last page which depicts discharge flange hydraulically connected with both pumps); a second shaft within the second pedestal casing (see Figure below); a second motor within the second motor casing (see Figure below); a first touch input controller attached to the first motor casing for input and/or output in association with the first pump (see Figure below); a first controller for controlling operation of the first touch input controller and the first pump (see Figure below); a second touch input controller attached to the second motor casing for input and/or output in association with the second pump (see Figure below); a second controller for controlling operation of the second touch input controller and the second pump (see Figure below), wherein the pump unit is a vertical inline split-coupled unit (see Figure below) and wherein in a vertical orientation the casing is substantially vertically symmetrical and includes a flattened bottom (see Figure below, Examiner noting flattened bottom represented by underside of first pedestal casing as well as the underside depicted on page 4 of the brochure)
Armstrong is also not explicit about a flap valve which hydraulically connects the first pump and the second pump to the discharge flange. However, Englesson teaches using a flap valve that hydraulically connects a first pump and a second pump to a discharge flange (Fig. 1, note flap valve 19). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a flap valve as taught by Englesson into the apparatus of Armstrong to prevent discharge fluid from flowing into the adjacent pump when only one pump is operating.
Armstrong also does not disclose touchscreens attached to a motor casing for input and/or output in association with the pump. However, such technology is well known in the prior art as shown by Magyar (Fig. 3) which teaches a pump arrangement which utilizes a touchscreen (165, paragraph 19) attached to a motor casing (120) for input and/or output in association with the pump. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a touchscreen arrangement as taught by Magyar into the apparatus of Armstrong to provide a visual display of information and control choices that can easily be viewed and manipulated by an operator. A skilled artisan would have the wherewithal to incorporate Magyar’s touchscreens into adjacently arranged pumping units.
Armstrong is also not explicit about a first/second pair of removable covers positioned at opposing sides of the first/second pedestal casing for accessing the first/second shaft. However, ASC teaches performing maintenance on a similar style pump and depicts a pair of removable covers positioned at opposing sides of pedestal casing for accessing its shaft (see screenshot below taken at time period 2:09 which depicts an operator removing two covers positioned at opposing sides of the pedestal casing). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize removable covers as taught by ASC into the casing of Armstrong to be able to more easily perform pump maintenance. As incorporated into Armstrong, a skilled artisan would be readily capable of incorporating the teachings of ASC into an adjoining pump casing.
PNG
media_image5.png
657
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
423
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
357
712
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar and ASC teach the previous limitations. Modified Armstrong would also convey that hydraulic characteristics of the casing and each pump provide hydraulically identical net flow and head pressure upon identical speed rotation of the first pump and the second pump (Examiner notes the identically mirrored two casings in Armstrong that would provide for identical net flow and head pressure at a set speed rotation).
Claim 6: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar and ASC teach the previous limitations. Modified Armstrong would also convey that hydraulic characteristics of the casing and each pump provide hydraulically identical and opposite rotational paths upon identical speed rotation of the first pump and the second pump (Examiner notes the identically mirrored two casings in Armstrong that would provide for identical and opposite rotational paths at a set speed rotation).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (Intelligent Variable Speed Pumps Brochure, August 2015) in view of Englesson (US 3,183,838) and Magyar (US20140250580) and Armstrong Seal Change “ASC” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-NWMKbcVE, dated November 22, 2011) and in further view of Greitzke (EP735273A1).
Claim 2: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar and ASC teach the previous limitations. Modified Armstrong is not explicit about the first controller and the second controller are configured to respectively control the first pump and the second pump in any symmetrical or asymmetrical range of parallel flow operation of the first pump and the second pump. However, Greitzke teaches a two pump / two controller arrangement in which the first controller and the second controller are configured to respectively control the first pump and the second pump in any symmetrical or asymmetrical range of parallel flow operation of the first pump and the second pump (see paragraphs 8-9, 12, 18, 26). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a control arrangement as taught by Greitzke into the modified arrangement of Armstrong to allow for the pumps to be regulated independently between standstill and running operations (see paragraph 1 in Greitzke).
Claim 3: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar and ASC teach the previous limitations. Modified Armstrong is not explicit about the first controller and the second controller are configured to respectively control the first pump and the second pump in a range of 0% to 100% of motor speed. However, However, Greitzke teaches a two pump / two controller arrangement in which the first controller and the second controller are configured to respectively control the first pump and the second pump in a range of 0% to 100% of motor speed (see paragraphs 8-9, 12, 18, 26). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a control arrangement as taught by Greitzke into the modified arrangement of Armstrong to allow for the pumps to be regulated independently between standstill and running operations (see paragraph 1 in Greitzke).
Claims 12-13: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar and ASC teach the previous limitations. Modified Armstrong is not explicit about a co-ordinate operation includes disabling only one of the first motor or the second motor for inspection/maintenance while simultaneously operating the other of the first motor or the second motor. However, Greitzke teaches a two pump / two controller arrangement (see Fig. 1, note individualized controllers 5) in which each of the controllers can operate and disable their respective motor/pump via a control interface to a higher-level control system (note 4, see also English translation of Greitzke, paragraphs 25-26; Examiner noting that this arrangement is in line with Applicant's disclosure in Fig. 6, and paragraphs 127-128). With one pump being shut down and another operating, an operator would be able to perform maintenance/inspection on the disabled pump/motor. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a control arrangement as taught by Greitzke into the apparatus of Armstrong to allow for the pumps to be regulated independently between standstill and running operations (see paragraph 1 in Greitzke).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (Intelligent Variable Speed Pumps Brochure, August 2015) in view of Englesson (US 3,183,838) and Magyar (US20140250580) and Armstrong Seal Change “ASC” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-NWMKbcVE, dated November 22, 2011) and Greitzke (EP735273A1) and in further view of Golden (US 7,980,833).
Claims 14-15: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar, ASC and Greitzke teach the previous limitations. Modified Armstrong further teaches (via ASC) about maintenance which can include seal maintenance on a first motor without removing the first pump and by opening a removable cover of the first pair of removable covers (Examiner noting screen shots of the cover removal at 2:09 and seal removal/replacement around 4:29 on the pump) and performing the opening the removable cover and performing the seal maintenance (note screenshots below. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to perform maintenance like that taught in ASC in Armstrong in order to assess the health of the pump after a particular service period and replace damaged/worn parts. While not explicit about seal maintenance on a first motor without removing the first pump, such teachings are well known in the art as made manifest by Golden which teaches maintenance on a pump that includes seal (124) maintenance without entirely removing the associated pump (see col. 1, lines 15-18 and Figures 3-4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to perform maintenance like that taught in modified Armstrong in order to assess the health of the pump after a particular service period and replace damaged/worn parts.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
604
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
423
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (Intelligent Variable Speed Pumps Brochure, August 2015) in view of Englesson (US 3,183,838) and Magyar (US20140250580) and Armstrong Seal Change “ASC” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-NWMKbcVE, dated November 22, 2011) and in further view of Trawicki (US20140026598).
Claim 4: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar and ASC teach the previous limitations. While Armstrong is not explicit about the first touchscreen and/or the second touchscreen is configured for respective commissioning and/or setup of the first pump and/or the second pump, using a touchscreen to setup an associated pump is taught by Trawicki (see paragraphs 38, 45-46, 48 and Figures 4-12) and could be extended to each of the touchscreens and their associated pumps in Armstrong. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a touchscreen setup as taught by Trawicki into the touchscreen setup of the modified Armstrong apparatus in order to allow for an operator to be present for directly observes the effects of setup and input any necessary adjustments.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (Intelligent Variable Speed Pumps Brochure, August 2015) in view of Englesson (US 3,183,838) and Magyar (US20140250580) and Armstrong Seal Change “ASC” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-NWMKbcVE, dated November 22, 2011) and in further view of Dhindsa (US 5,259,731).
Claim 7: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar and ASC teach the previous limitations. While Armstrong is not explicit about a co-ordination module configured to co-ordinate operation of the first motor and the second motor, such provisions are well known in the prior art, as taught by Dhindsa which uses a co-ordination module (Fig. 1, note 40) that is configured to co-ordinate operation of the first motor (via sub 72) and the second motor (via sub controller 74). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a co-ordination module as taught by Dhindsa into the modified Armstrong apparatus in order to allow for a single top-level controller to oversee multiple sub-level motors such that their speeds can be coordinated to maintain a desired output.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (Intelligent Variable Speed Pumps Brochure, August 2015) in view of Englesson (US 3,183,838) and Magyar (US20140250580) and Armstrong Seal Change “ASC” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-NWMKbcVE, dated November 22, 2011) and in further view of Lowara FCTS4 pump brochure from 2012 (hereafter “Lowara” and accessible at https://fortek.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fcfct-td-en.pdf).
Claim 8: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar and ASC teach the previous limitations. Modified Armstrong is not explicit about the pump unit casing having a flat bottom surface of exactly two flat regions of contact comprising a first exterior flange and a second exterior flange, wherein the suction flange and the discharge flange are floating and above the first exterior flange and the second exterior flange when the pump unit is vertically oriented. However, Lowara teaches a casing bottom having a flat bottom surface of exactly two flat regions of contact comprising a first exterior flange and a second exterior flange (see Figure below, on page 122), wherein the suction flange and the discharge flange are floating and above the first exterior flange and the second exterior flange when the pump unit is vertically oriented (which arrangement can be appreciated from observation of other mounting arrangements, e.g., page 116, in which the suction/discharge flanges are floating above the exterior flanges). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a bottom surface as taught by Lowara into the modified Armstrong apparatus in order to allow for a simple, balanced base to support the pump apparatus in the installed state.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar, ASC and Lowara teach the previous limitations. Lowara further teaches that the first exterior flange has a first flattened surface and extends lower than the suction flange and the discharge flange when the pump unit is vertically oriented, and wherein the second exterior flange which has a second flattened surface and extends lower than the suction flange and the discharge flange when the pump unit is vertically oriented (as can be appreciated from disclosures on pages 116 and 122 and the discussion with respect to claim 8).
Claim 10: Armstrong, Englesson, Magyar, ASC and Lowara teach the previous limitations. Lowara further teaches that the first exterior flange and the second exterior flange are horizontally aligned when the pump unit is vertically oriented (see Figure above, page 122), so that the first exterior flange and the second exterior flange collectively provide the flat bottom surface (see Figure above, page 122).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746