DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2026.08.26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 11, 14, and 16 have been amended.
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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,438,329, “Fuller,” in view of US 2008/0292454, “Brunner,” as evidenced by US 2019/0285071, “Webster.”
Regarding Claim 1: Fuller discloses a downhole centrifugal pump (Figures 1 – 9) comprising: impellers (22); a rotational shaft (23) passing through the impellers to impart rotation to the impellers (As shown in at least Figure 1; Cl. 2, ln. 45); diffusers (30, 32) housing the impellers, each of the diffusers comprising a radial sidewall defining a radially outer portion of each of the diffusers (The outermost, and innermost, radial surfaces as shown in at least Figures 1 – 5 (i.e. the surfaces forming the radial outer and radial inner cylindrical shape of the diffusers)), a first axial end (The uppermost axial surface as shown in at least Figured 1 – 5) of the radial sidewall of a first diffuser of the diffusers comprising a stepped surface (M) including an axially extending flange defining an inner radial portion of the radial sidewall of a first diffuser (As shown in at least Figures 1, 3, and 5), the axially extending flange being spaced from and positioned radially inward of an outer radial extent of the radial sidewall of the first diffuser (The axially extending flange is interpreted as the portion of the top margin M which extends in the axial direction, forming the flange as a continuation of the radially inward sidewall 46 of the diffuser); however, Fuller fails to explicitly disclose further comprising coupling protrusions defined in the axially extending flange on the first axial end of the radial sidewall of the first diffuser of the diffusers, the coupling protrusions integrally formed in the axially extending flange with associated recesses between each of the coupling protrusions, the associated recesses axially extending along only a portion of the axially extending flange, the coupling protrusions being received in corresponding recesses defined in a second axial end of the radial sidewall of a second diffuser of the diffusers, the coupling protrusions configured to at least partially prevent the first diffuser from rotating relative to the second diffuser, the coupling protrusions and the corresponding recesses being spaced from and positioned radially inward of the outer radial extent of both the radial sidewall of the first diffuser and the radial sidewall of the second diffuser.
Brunner teaches a downhole centrifugal pump (12) (Figures 1 – 4) comprising: impellers (20); a rotational shaft (29) passing through the impellers to impart rotation to the impellers ([0016], “a shaft 29 (shown in phantom) that extends axially through the pump”); diffusers (21) housing the impellers ([0016], “One or more diffusers 21 (e.g., two shown, and hundreds may be used) are co-axially positioned within housing 27 and have an inner portion with a bore 31 through which shaft 29 extends”), an axially extending flange on the first axial end of the radial sidewall of the first diffuser (As shown in at least Figures 3 and 4; Generally indicated as elements 65, 47) of the diffusers and further comprising coupling protrusions (41) defined in the axially extending flange on the first axial end of the radial sidewall of the first diffuser of the diffusers (As shown in at least Figures 2 – 4; [0020], “diffuser 21 comprises a cylindrical body having at least one lug 41 (e.g., three) extending therefrom in an axial direction”), the coupling protrusions integrally formed in the axially extending flange with associated recesses (43) between each of the coupling protrusions (As shown in at least Figures 2 – 4; [0020], “complementary recess 43 is formed in the cylindrical body extending in the axial direction opposite the lug 41”), the associated recesses axially extending along only a portion of the axially extending flange (As shown in at least Figures 2 – 4; The recesses are shown extending only partially around the diffuser in the circumferential direction), the coupling protrusions being received in corresponding recesses defined in a second axial end of the radial sidewall of a second diffuser of the diffusers (As shown in at least Figures 2 – 4), the coupling protrusions configured to at least partially prevent the first diffuser from rotating relative to the second diffuser ([0021], “complementary recesses 43 receive and nest respective lugs 41 on axially adjacent diffusers 21 to form an interlocked stack that prevents relative rotation between the diffusers 21 and the housing 27”). Brunner alone fails to teach placement of the elements such that the coupling protrusions and the corresponding recesses being spaced from and positioned radially inward of the outer radial extent of both the radial sidewall of the first diffuser and the radial sidewall of the second diffuser.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the axially extending flange defining an inner radial portion of the radial sidewall of Fuller to further comprise a plurality of coupling protrusions extending therefrom on the first axial end, and to incorporate a plurality of corresponding recess defined in the second axial end, as taught by Brunner, with the predicted results that such an arrangement will fix each diffuser relative to the adjacent diffuser thereby preventing rotation between adjacent diffusers in a manner well known in the art (Brunner, at least [0021]). It is noted that a plurality of coupling protrusions extending therefrom on a first axial end of a diffuser to provide a anti-rotation locking feature to a stack of plural diffusers, wherein the coupling protrusion is spaced from and positioned radially inward of the outer radial extent of both the radial sidewall of a first diffuser and the radial sidewall of a second diffuser is known in the art as evidenced by Webster ((315) ([0040], “diffuser 200 may include one or more male register tabs 310;” As shown in at least Figures 3A, 5A, 7, and 8; The first axial end interpreted as the upper end of the diffuser in the axial direction as shown in the reference figures).
Once combined, Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, makes obvious the coupling protrusions and the corresponding recesses being spaced from and positioned radially inward of the outer radial extent of both the radial sidewall of the first diffuser and the radial sidewall of the second diffuser. Addition of coupling protrusions to the axial extending flange of Fuller would place such a feature radially inward of the outer radial extent of the diffuser, such that the corresponding recess in an adjacent one of the plural diffusers would also be placed positioned radially inward of the outer radial extent such that they mate in a manner well known in the art as taught by Brunner and as further evidenced by Webster.
Regarding Claim 2: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 1; once combined, Fuller further discloses wherein the second diffuser comprises a stepped surface on the first axial end and the second axial end (As shown in at least Figures 1 – 5; Generally indicated as M on the first axial end (i.e. the top), and as M’ on the second axial end (i.e. the bottom)), the stepped surface of the first diffuser and the stepped surface of the second diffuser interlocking with one another (As shown in at least Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 3: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 2; once combined, Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, makes obvious wherein the corresponding recesses are defined on the stepped surface of the second diffuser (Once combined, Brunner makes obvious placement of the corresponding recess on the stepped surface of the second diffuser; As discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1, the coupling protrusions of Brunner are incorporated onto the axially extending lip or flange portion, forming the axially extending wall of the stepped surface, such that the coupling protrusions are interepted as being defined on the stepped surface, as such, the corresponding recess for each coupling protrusion is interpreted as being formed on the opposing stepped surface of the adjacent diffuser).
Regarding Claim 4: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 3; once combined, Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, makes obvious wherein the corresponding recesses are defined in an axially extending wall of the stepped surface of the second diffuser (Once combined, Brunner makes obvious placement of the corresponding recess on the stepped surface of the second diffuser; As discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1, the coupling protrusions of Brunner are incorporated onto the axially extending lip or flange portion, forming the axially extending wall of the stepped surface, such that the coupling protrusions are interepted as being defined on the stepped surface, as such, the corresponding recess for each coupling protrusion is interpreted as being formed on the opposing stepped surface of the adjacent diffuser), the corresponding recesses being separated by second coupling protrusions, the second coupling protrusions extending axially along only a portion of the axially extending wall of the stepped surface of the second diffuser (Once combined, Brunner makes obvious such second coupling protrusions, interpreted as the extending portions of the flange of the second diffuser which are spaced in a corresponding manner between each of the respective corresponding recesses which mate with the coupling protrusions of the adjacent diffuser in the same manner as those shown in at least Figures 8 and 9 of the instant specification. As previously discussed, the corresponding recess for each coupling protrusion is interpreted as being formed on the opposing stepped surface of the adjacent diffuser, such that the corresponding recess will be necessarily arranged in the axially extending wall of the stepped surface of the opposing diffuser).
Regarding Claim 5: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 4; once combined, Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, makes obvious wherein the coupling protrusions extend axially along only a portion of the axially extending wall of the stepped surface of the first diffuser, and wherein the corresponding recess extends axially along only a portion of the axially extending wall of the stepped surface of the second diffuser (As shown in at least Figures 3 and 4 of Brunner; The coupling protrusions and the corresponding recesses are shown extending along only a portion of the circumference of each axial end of the diffuser such that they are formed as discrete elements extending from or receding into the diffuser, once combined to the arrangement of Fuller, the coupling protrusions and the corresponding recesses will extend axially only along a portion of the circumference of the axially extending walls in the same manner). It is noted that the arrangement of Fuller, in view of Brunner, combines to provide an arrangement equivalent to that of the tabs and flanges as shown in at least Figures 8 and 9 of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 6: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 1; once combined, Fuller further discloses wherein an end diffuser of the diffusers (Interpreted as the bottommost diffuser 30 as shown in at least Figure 1) is coupled to an adjacent component (31, 15) to at least partially transfer a rotational force applied to the diffusers through the diffusers to the adjacent component (As shown in at least Figure 1; The bottom diffuser cap 31 is shown arranged with bracket 15 such that they clamp the diffusers in the casing or shell 12 between the bottom diffuser cap and the discharge head as further discussed in at least Cl. 2, ln. 39, “the stationary elements thereof in stacked engagement and clamped in assembly between the bracket 15 and discharge head 14.” As such, the adjacent component of 31, 15, is interepted as being arranged to partially transfer rotational forces from the diffusers to the adjacent component through a clamping force).
Regarding Claim 7: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 6; once combined, Fuller further discloses wherein the adjacent component comprises a pump base (15) of the downhole centrifugal pump (As shown in at least Figure 1, and as further discussed in at least Cl. 2, ln. 25 - 42, the adjacent component 15 forms the base of the diffuser stack such that it is broadly interpreted as forming a pump base).
Regarding Claim 8: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 7; however, once combined, Fuller fails to explicitly disclose wherein protrusions couple the end diffuser to the pump base in order to anchor the end diffuser to the pump base. Fuller, in view of Brunner, teaches an arrangement comprising coupling protrusions between adjacent diffusers. It is noted that the arrangement of the end diffuser and the adjacent component is arranged with equivalent stepped structures as that of each adjacent one of the stacked diffusers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjacent component to incorporate coupling protrusions in the same manner as the diffusers, as combined by Fuller, in view of Brunner, with the predicted results that such an arrangement will further act to prevent rotation between the adjacent components in a manner equivalent to that of the stacked diffusers and in a manner well known in the art (Brunner, at least [0021]).
Regarding Claim 9: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 8; once combined, Fuller, in view of Brunner, further teaches wherein the protrusions each comprise tabs and/or castellations defined on the end diffuser (The protrusions as combined by Brunner are broadly interpreted as forming tabs and/or castellations in the same manner as those of the instant invention as shown by at least Figures 8 and 9 of the instant specification).
Regarding Claim 10: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the downhole centrifugal pump of claim 1; however, Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, does not explicitly disclose or teach wherein the coupling protrusions and the associated recesses exhibit substantially the same circumferential width. Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, makes obvious an arrangement comprising coupling protrusions wherein the coupling protrusion and the associated recesses circumferentially between adjacent protrusions are not substantially the same circumferential width. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the circumferential with of the coupling protrusions and the associated recesses such that the spacing between them was substantially the same in their circumferential width since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the spacing between each of the pairs of ribs being the same versus the design taught by Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the spacing between each coupling protrusions and the associated recesses is the same and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, [0068] suggests that the claimed arrangement is merely one of several embodiments in which the coupling protrusions and the associated recesses can be arranged. Thus, when the spacing between each coupling protrusions and the associated recesses is designed to have a circumferential width that is substantially the same, the coupling protrusions and the associated recesses will of the aforesaid combination will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of such that wherein the coupling protrusions and the associated recesses exhibit substantially the same circumferential width. (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding Claim 11: Fuller discloses a centrifugal pump (Figures 1 – 9) comprising: impellers (22); a rotational shaft (23) passing through the impellers to impart rotation to the impellers (As shown in at least Figure 1; Cl. 2, ln. 45); a stack of diffusers (30, 32) housing the impellers, the stack of diffusers comprising sidewalls defining a radially outer portion of the stack of diffusers (The outermost radial surface as shown in at least Figures 3 and 5; The radial outermost surface opposite the radial innermost surface 46), at least some diffusers of the stack of diffusers including interlocking stepped surfaces that extend radially inward from the sidewalls to an interior of the stack of diffusers (As shown in at least Figures 1 – 5; the margin M of Fuller is shown forming an interlocking stepped surface which extends from the diffuser at a location spaced away from the radially exterior surface such that they extend radially inward from the sidewalls to an interior of the diffusers); however, Fuller fails to explicitly disclose further comprising coupling members defined by axially extending flanges of the stack of diffusers, each coupling member at least partially securing one diffuser of the stack of diffusers to an adjacent diffuser of the stack of diffusers, the coupling members configured to at least partially transfer rotational forces applied to one or more diffusers of the stack of diffusers to a remaining portion of the stack of diffusers, the coupling members being defined on an interior portion of the stepped surfaces of the stack of diffusers, the coupling members being separated by recesses extending between each of the coupling member, at least some of the coupling members and at least some of the recess extending only along a portion of the axially extending flanges.
Brunner teaches a downhole centrifugal pump (12) (Figures 1 – 4) comprising: impellers (20); a rotational shaft (29) passing through the impellers to impart rotation to the impellers ([0016], “a shaft 29 (shown in phantom) that extends axially through the pump”); diffusers (21) housing the impellers ([0016], “One or more diffusers 21 (e.g., two shown, and hundreds may be used) are co-axially positioned within housing 27 and have an inner portion with a bore 31 through which shaft 29 extends”), an axially extending flange on the first axial end of the radial sidewall of the first diffuser (As shown in at least Figures 3 and 4; Generally indicated as elements 65, 47) of the diffusers and further comprising coupling members (41) defined by axially extending flanges of the stack of diffusers (As shown in at least Figures 2 – 4; [0020], “diffuser 21 comprises a cylindrical body having at least one lug 41 (e.g., three) extending therefrom in an axial direction”), each coupling member at least partially securing one diffuser of the stack of diffusers to an adjacent diffuser of the stack of diffusers, the coupling members configured to at least partially transfer rotational forces applied to one or more diffusers of the stack of diffusers to a remaining portion of the stack of diffusers ([0021], “complementary recesses 43 receive and nest respective lugs 41 on axially adjacent diffusers 21 to form an interlocked stack that prevents relative rotation between the diffusers 21 and the housing 27”), the coupling members being separated by recesses extending between each of the coupling member (The recesses interpreted as being formed by the circumferential space between adjacent ones of the coupling members, generally shown comprising the outermost shoulder 65 in at least Figures 3 and 4), at least some of the coupling members and at least some of the recess extending only along a portion of the axially extending flanges (As shown in at least Figures 3 and 4; The coupling members and the recesses each are shown extending along only portions of the axially extending flange in the same manner as shown in at least Figures 8 and 9 of the instant specification). Brunner alone fails to teach placement of the elements such that the coupling members being defined on an interior portion of the stepped surfaces of the stack of diffusers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the axially extending flange defining an inner radial portion of the radial sidewall of Fuller to further comprise a plurality of coupling protrusions extending therefrom on the first axial end, and to incorporate a plurality of corresponding recess defined in the second axial end, as taught by Brunner, with the predicted results that such an arrangement will fix each diffuser relative to the adjacent diffuser thereby preventing rotation between adjacent diffusers in a manner well known in the art (Brunner, at least [0021]). It is noted that a plurality of coupling protrusions extending therefrom on a first axial end of a diffuser to provide a anti-rotation locking feature to a stack of plural diffusers, wherein the coupling protrusion is spaced from and positioned radially inward of the outer radial extent of both the radial sidewall of a first diffuser and the radial sidewall of a second diffuser is known in the art as evidenced by Webster ((315) ([0040], “diffuser 200 may include one or more male register tabs 310;” As shown in at least Figures 3A, 5A, 7, and 8; The first axial end interpreted as the upper end of the diffuser in the axial direction as shown in the reference figures).
Once combined, Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, makes obvious the coupling members being defined on an interior portion of the stepped surfaces of the stack of diffusers. Addition of coupling protrusions to the axial extending flange of Fuller would place such a feature radially inward of the outer radial extent of the diffuser, such that the corresponding recess in an adjacent one of the plural diffusers would also be placed positioned radially inward of the outer radial extent such that they mate in a manner well known in the art as taught by Brunner and as further evidenced by Webster.
Regarding Claim 12: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the centrifugal pump of claim 11; once combined, Brunner further teaches wherein the coupling members comprise integrally defined tabs extending from the sidewalls of the one or more diffusers of the stack of diffusers (As discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 11, the coupling members of Brunner are incorporated onto the axially extending lip or flange portion of the diffuser of Fuller, the coupling members of Brunner are taught as being integrally formed with the diffuser as shown in at least Figures 1 – 4, such that the combined apparatus would incorporate such integrally defined tabs extending from the sidewalls of the diffusers of Fuller).
Regarding Claim 13: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the centrifugal pump of claim 12; once combined, Brunner further teaches wherein the integrally defined tabs are configured to be received in recesses integrally defined in the sidewalls of the stack of diffusers (As discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 11, the recesses of Brunner are incorporated onto the axially extending lip or flange portion of the diffusers of Fuller, the recesses of Brunner are taught as being integrally formed with the diffuser as shown in at least Figures 1 – 4, such that the combined apparatus would incorporate such integrally defined recesses defined in the sidewalls of the diffusers of Fuller).
Regarding Claim 14: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the centrifugal pump of claim 13; once combined, Brunner further teaches wherein the integrally defined tabs and the recesses are integrally defined in the interior portion of the stepped surfaces of the sidewalls of the stack of diffusers (As discussed in the aforesaid rejection of claim 11, the coupling protrusions of Brunner are incorporated onto the axially extending lip or flange portion, forming the axially extending wall of the stepped surface, such that the coupling protrusions are interepted as being defined on the stepped surface, as such, the corresponding recess for each coupling protrusion is interpreted as being formed on the opposing stepped surface of the adjacent diffuser).
Regarding Claim 15: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the centrifugal pump of claim 11; once combined, Fuller further discloses further comprising an anchoring end diffuser (Interpreted as the bottommost diffuser 30 as shown in at least Figure 1) configured to transfer the rotational forces applied to the one or more diffusers of the stack of diffusers to a pump base (31, 15) (As shown in at least Figure 1; The bottom diffuser cap 31 is shown arranged with bracket 15 such that they clamp the diffusers in the casing or shell 12 between the bottom diffuser cap and the discharge head as further discussed in at least Cl. 2, ln. 39, “the stationary elements thereof in stacked engagement and clamped in assembly between the bracket 15 and discharge head 14.” As such, the adjacent component of 31, 15, is interepted as being arranged to partially transfer rotational forces from the diffusers to the adjacent component through a clamping force).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,438,329, “Fuller,” in view of US 2008/0292454, “Brunner,” and US 2019/0285071, “Webster,” as evidenced by US 2001/0002348, “Mountford.”
Regarding Claim 10: Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the centrifugal pump of claim 1; however, Fuller, in view of Brunner, fails to explicitly disclose or teach wherein the coupling protrusions and the associated recesses exhibit substantially the same circumferential width. However, Webster teaches modifying the circumferential width of the coupling protrusions and the associated recesses to achieve sufficient strength such that the coupling protrusions do not shear when under load ([0040], “each male register tab 310 may extend 10°, 13.85°, 15°, or another similar angle around the circumference of diffuser”). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the circumferential width of the coupling protrusions and the associated recesses of the aforesaid combination such that they exhibit substantially the same circumferential width, as such a modification is viewed as a simple change in shape or proportion which will yield the predictable results of providing sufficient strength to the coupling protrusions. It is further noted that such a uniform distribution is known in the art of anti rotation couplings as evidenced by at least Mountford (At least Figure 3 and [0019]).
Claim(s) 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,438,329, “Fuller,” in view of US 2008/0292454, “Brunner,” and US 2013/0340245, “Watson,” as evidenced by US 2019/0285071, “Webster.”
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 is directed towards a method of operating a centrifugal pump, the centrifugal pump of claim 16 interpreted as directed towards the pump of either of claim 1 – 9, and 11 – 15. Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the pump of claims 1 – 9, and 11 – 15, as such, Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the method of claim 16 . Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. (MPEP 2112.02) However, Fuller, in view of Brunner, fails to explicitly disclose anchoring an end diffuser of the plurality of diffusers coupled to an adjacent component of the centrifugal pump using a coupling method that is different from the tabs connecting the at least some of the plurality of diffusers.
Watson teaches Watson teaches an electrical submersible pumping (ESP) system (Figure 1), similarly arranged to that of Brunner, and further teaches and arrangement of coupling adjacent components of the ESP to prevent rotation through the use of an anti-rotation feature comprising a pin ([0023], “To prevent spinning and unscrewing, factory joints can be locked welded or otherwise secured and field joints can utilize pins, lugs, castellations, or other suitable anti-rotation mechanisms”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling protrusion, comprising a lug, of Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, to be in the form of a removable pin, as taught by Watson, with the predicted results that a removable pin will be just as effective an anti-rotation feature as a lug (Watson, [0023]). It is further noted that the modification change from a lug to a pin is viewed as a simple substitution of one known anti-rotation feature for that of another. Such a substitution would have been obvious since, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 17: Claim 17 is directed towards a method of operating a centrifugal pump, the centrifugal pump of claim 17 interpreted as directed towards the pump of either of claims 8 or 15. Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the pump of claims 8 and 15, as such, Fuller, in view of Brunner, and Watson, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the method of claim 17. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. (MPEP 2112.02)
Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18 is directed towards a method of operating a centrifugal pump, the centrifugal pump of claim 18 interpreted as directed towards the pump of claim 10. Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the pump of claim 10, as such, Fuller, in view of Brunner, and Watson, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the method of claim 18. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. (MPEP 2112.02)
Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19 is directed towards a method of operating a centrifugal pump, the centrifugal pump of claim 18 interpreted as directed towards the pump of previously recited claim 10 (It is noted that claim 10 is has been amended to remove the pin feature, which is now shown as taught by Watson through the aforesaid rejection of claim 16). Fuller, in view of Brunner, and Watson, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the pump of claim 16, as such, Fuller, in view of Brunner, and Watson, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the method of claim 19. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. (MPEP 2112.02)
Regarding Claim 20: Claim 20 is directed towards a method of operating a centrifugal pump, the centrifugal pump of claim 20 interpreted as directed towards the pump of at least claim 6. Fuller, in view of Brunner, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the pump of at least claim 6, as such, Fuller, in view of Brunner, and Watson, as evidenced by Webster, teaches the method of claim 20. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. (MPEP 2112.02)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026.07.17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on page 3 of their Remarks, that modification of Fuller in view of Brunner is not obvious, and that such a modification would result in the coupling protrusions of Brunner located on the outermost radial location of Fuller, and not positioned radially inward of the outer radial extent.
PNG
media_image1.png
188
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the modification does not simply remove the coupling protrusions of Brunner and install them onto the axially extending flange of Fuller, rather Brunner provides a teaching and motivation for providing such a feature onto the existing structure of Fuller, as further evidenced by Webster. Such an argument towards the combination reads as an argument towards Brunner individually, by relying on the location of the coupling protrusion in Brunner individually and not by the location of the combination. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants’ arguments appear to rely on combining the male register of Brunner to the diffuser of Fuller and not combining the locking tabs of Brunner to the existing male register location of Fuller. In response to applicant's argument that Fuller in view of Brunner fail to make obvious the claimed arrangement, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN DOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0900 - 1700.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/BENJAMIN DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2026.09.02
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights