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 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 8, claim 2 line 1, claim 4 line 3 and claim 11 line 1, “the sleeve” would be clearer if written as --the metal sleeve-- since there is also a shaft sleeve recited.
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.
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 5 and 8 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.
The term “tight fit” in claims 5 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close of a fit is a tight fit. The Examiner notes that in further interpreting the claims, it is assumed that any fit is a tight fit as claimed.
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2019/0109516 to Bernreuther in view of U. S. Patent 8,696,333 to Ishiguro.
Referring to claim 1, Bernreuther teaches a fluid pump comprising:
a pump casing (7, 19) comprising a sleeve (6) arranged therein and dividing an internal space of the pump casing (7, 19) into a first space (inside 6) and a second space (outside 6) (Fig. 1, annotated below; paragraphs [0034], [0045]-[0047]);
an impeller (bladed portion of 3) arranged in the pump casing (7, 19) (Fig. 1, annotated below; paragraphs [0034], [0045]-[0047]); and
a motor (comprising stator 20 and magnetic portion of 3) for driving the impeller (bladed portion of 3) to rotate in the pump casing (7, 19), the motor comprising a stator (20) received in the second space and a rotor (magnetic portion of 3) received in the first space, wherein the rotor (magnetic portion of 3) is fixedly connected to (integral with) the impeller (bladed portion of 3) and rotatably connected to a shaft (2), a shaft sleeve (8) is fixedly arranged in the sleeve (6), and an end of the shaft (2) is fixedly inserted into the shaft sleeve (8) (Fig. 1, annotated below; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer Casing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Cover)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Impeller)][AltContent: textbox (Open End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Closed End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Stator)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Space)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Space)][AltContent: textbox (Shaft Seat)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
827
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Bernreuther Figure 1.
Bernreuther does not teach a metal sleeve. Ishiguro teaches a pump wherein:
a sleeve (14) is a metal sleeve (Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 34-42).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Bernreuther with the metal material for the sleeve taught by Ishiguro in order to use a material that electrically conductive and can be grounded (col. 3 lines 34-42), can withstand some impact, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 11, Bernreuther and Ishiguro teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Bernreuther does not teach a metal sleeve. Ishiguro further teaches a pump wherein:
the sleeve metal sleeve (14) is a stainless steel sleeve (Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 34-42).
Referring to claim 12, Bernreuther and Ishiguro teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Bernreuther further teaches a pump wherein:
the shaft sleeve (8) is a metal shaft sleeve (Fig. 1, annotated above; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0109516 to Bernreuther in view of U. S. Patent 8,696,333 to Ishiguro and U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0191161 to Svarre.
Referring to claim 2, Bernreuther and Ishiguro teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Bernreuther further teaches a pump wherein:
the sleeve (6) has a cylindrical structure with an open end and a closed end, where the open end faces the impeller (the bladed/impeller portion of 3), a shaft seat (portion of 17 of sleeve 6 which extends beyond the impeller/rotor and includes 22) and the shaft sleeve (8) is fixedly inserted into the shaft seat (Fig. 1, annotated above; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
Bernreuther and Ishiguro do not teach a shaft seat that protrudes outward from the closed end away from the open end. Svarre teaches a pump wherein:
a shaft seat protrudes outward from a closed end of a sleeve (57) away from an open end of the sleeve (57) (Fig. 1, annotated below, paragraphs [0064]-[0066]).
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Through Hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Space)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer Casing)][AltContent: textbox (Inner Casing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open End)][AltContent: textbox (Shaft Seat)][AltContent: textbox (Closed End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
477
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Svarre Figure 11.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Bernreuther with the shaft seat protrusion taught by Svarre in order to provide more space for the rotor by allowing the shaft sleeve to extend far enough away from the rotor that the shaft sleeve does not need to extend into the rotor, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the shaft seat shape of Svarre, for another, the shaft seat shape of Bernreuther, to obtain predictable results, supporting the shaft sleeve, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, and since it has been held that rearranging parts (by reversing the direction the Bernreuther shaft sleeve extends) of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B; In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Referring to claim 3, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Svarre teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and Bernreuther further teaches a pump wherein:
one end of the shaft sleeve (8) facing the impeller extends beyond the shaft seat (Fig. 1, annotated above; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
Referring to claim 4, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Svarre teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, and Bernreuther further teaches a pump wherein:
a positioning ring (14) extends radially outward from the end of the shaft sleeve (8) to axially abut against an inner surface of the closed end of the sleeve (6) (Fig. 1, annotated above; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
Referring to claim 5, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Svarre teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and Bernreuther further teaches a pump wherein:
the shaft sleeve (8) is fixed to the shaft seat through a tight fit, and the shaft (2) is fixed to the shaft sleeve (8) through a tight fit (Fig. 1, annotated above; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
Referring to claim 6, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Svarre teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and Bernreuther further teaches a pump wherein:
the pump casing (7, 19) comprises a first cover (7) and a second cover respectively connected to both axial ends of an outer casing, the first space is defined between the sleeve (6) and the first cover (7), and the second space is defined between the outer casing, and the second cover (Fig. 1, annotated above; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
Bernreuther and Ishiguro do not teach an inner casing. Svarre further teaches a pump comprising:
an inner casing and an outer casing spaced apart in a radial direction, the inner casing encircles the sleeve (57) and a second space is defined between the inner casing, the outer casing, and a second cover (21) (Fig. 1, annotated above, paragraphs [0064]-[0066] and [0078]-[0081]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Bernreuther with the inner casing taught by Svarre in order to support the stator core (paragraphs [0078]-[0081]).
Referring to claim 7, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Svarre teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 6, as detailed above, but Bernreuther and Ishiguro do not teach an inner casing. Svarre further teaches a pump comprising:
a through hole is defined in a bottom side of the inner casing, the shaft seat partially passes through the through hole and extends into the second space (Fig. 1, annotated above, paragraphs [0064]-[0066] and [0078]-[0081]).
Referring to claim 8, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Svarre teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, but Bernreuther and Ishiguro do not teach an inner casing. Svarre further teaches a pump wherein:
the shaft seat and the through hole have a tight fit (Fig. 1, annotated above, paragraphs [0064]-[0066] and [0078]-[0081]).
Referring to claim 9, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Svarre teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 8, as detailed above, but Bernreuther and Ishiguro do not teach an inner casing. Svarre further teaches a pump wherein:
the stator comprises a core (114) with a plurality of pole portions (formed by the teeth 120), coils (inherent of the disclosed motor) wound around the pole portions, and a circuit board (15) electrically connected to the coils, and the shaft seat is closer to the circuit board (15) than the bottom side of the inner casing (Fig. 1, annotated above, paragraphs [0064]-[0066] and [0078]-[0081]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the shaft seat closer to the circuit board than the bottom side of the inner casing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955)), and since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Referring to claim 10, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Svarre teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 6, as detailed above, but Bernreuther and Ishiguro do not teach an inner casing. Svarre further teaches a pump wherein:
the stator comprises a core (114) with a plurality of pole portions (formed by the teeth 120), coils (inherent of the disclosed motor) wound around the pole portions, and a circuit board (15) electrically connected to the coils, the core (114) encircles the inner casing, and the inner casing defines a plurality of openings respectively aligning with the pole portions, allowing free ends (top and bottom ends) of the pole portions to be embedded into the corresponding openings (Fig. 1, annotated above, paragraphs [0064]-[0066] and [0078]-[0081]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0109516 to Bernreuther in view of U. S. Patent 8,696,333 to Ishiguro and U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0408852 to Inada.
Referring to claim 13, Bernreuther and Ishiguro teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Bernreuther further teaches a pump wherein:
the rotor (magnetic portion of 3) is integrally connected to the impeller (the bladed/impeller portion of 3) (Fig. 1, annotated above; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
Bernreuther and Ishiguro do not teach an encapsulated rotor. Inada teaches a pump wherein:
a rotor (10) of a motor comprises a core (12), permanent magnets (9), and a rotor shell (11) integrally encapsulating the core (12) and the permanent magnets (9) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Bernreuther with the rotor encapsulation taught by Inada in order to secure the components of the rotor together and protect them from damaging fluids.
Referring to claim 14, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Inada teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 13, as detailed above, and Bernreuther further teaches a pump wherein:
two bearings (18, 19) are connected between the shaft (2) and the rotor (magnetic portion of 3) (Fig. 1, annotated above; paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0045]-[0047]).
Bernreuther and Ishiguro do not teach an encapsulated rotor, however, as detailed above, Inada teaches a pump with the rotor shell (11) integrally encapsulating the core (12) and the permanent magnets (9) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraph [0030]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0109516 to Bernreuther in view of U. S. Patent 8,696,333 to Ishiguro, U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0408852 to Inada and U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0072224 to Zou.
Referring to claim 15, Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Inada teach a pump comprising all the limitations of claim 14, as detailed above, Inada already teaches a pump with the rotor shell (11) integrally encapsulating the core (12) and the permanent magnets (9) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraph [0030]), but Bernreuther, Ishiguro and Inada are silent as to how the bearings are fixed in the rotor shell. Zou teaches a pump wherein:
bearings are integrally fixed within the rotor shell by an injection moulding process of a rotor shell (Fig. 3; paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Bernreuther with the bearing encapsulation taught by Zou in order to secure the bearings in the rotor and protect them from damaging fluids.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zou teaches a similar pump as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746