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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and not persuasive. Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill would not look to the auxiliary vanes to modify the main vanes because the auxiliary vanes operate in an environment dominated by shear instead of an environment of “through flow velocity field, … flow separation and recirculation of the vanes surfaces, and the associated turbulence and secondary flow structures”.
Jimenez is evidence that it is known to put tapered vanes in the main flow path.
Applicant further submits that there is no reasonable expectation of success. Jimenez provides the reasonable expectation of success.
For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
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) 1-6, 10, 12-14, 16-18 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ree US 9534601 in view of Geldenhuys US 8210816.
Regarding claim 1 Ree discloses a tapered rotary disc pump (Fig. 4), comprising:
a disc assembly (Fig. 7) comprising a first disc and a second disc, the first disc comprising a first inner surface and the second disc comprising a second inner surface, the first disc and second disc forming a chamber between the first disc and the second disc (Fig. 7); a plurality of standoffs (73) coupling the first disc with the second disc; and
a plurality of vanes comprising a first plurality of vanes and a second plurality of vanes (71 and 72), wherein the first plurality of vanes is disposed on the first inner surface and the second plurality of vanes is disposed on the second inner surface, each of the plurality of vanes comprising:
a vane inner end (radially inner end of vane) and a vane outer end (radially outer end of vane) opposite the vane inner end, the vane outer end terminating at a disc periphery of the first disc or the second disc such that the vane outer end and the disc periphery form a flush relationship (Fig. 7), wherein the vane inner end extends inwardly toward a center of the first disc or the second disc (Fig. 7),
a vane leading face and a vane trailing face, the vane trailing face comprising an orthogonal configuration with a respective inner surface (Fig. 7);
wherein at least one of the plurality of vanes tapers from the vane outer end toward the vane inner end (Fig. 7).
However, it does not teach that the at least one of the plurality of vanes tapers from the respective inner surface toward the chamber.
Geldenhuys teaches a disc assembly with vanes tapering from an inner surface towards a chamber while maintaining an trailing face (44) orthogonal to an inner surface (Fig. 4, see “perpendicular-obtuse” and “obtuse-perpendicular”). Geldenhuys so teaches in order to prevent the leading face from abrading away as fast as perpendicular leading faces and retains efficiency for a longer period of time (col. 2 ln. 50-56). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vanes as taught by Ree by incorporating a taper as taught by Geldenhuys in order to improve wear and maintain efficiency for longer.
Regarding claim 2, The combination further teaches that each of the plurality of vanes tapers from the vane outer end toward the vane inner end (Ree, Fig. 7), and further wherein each of the plurality of vanes tapers from the respective inner surface toward the chamber (Geldenhuys, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Ree further discloses that the first disc is in parallel alignment with the second disc (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ree further discloses that the first disc is concentrically aligned with the second disc (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Ree further discloses that the first plurality of vanes comprises a first quantity and the second plurality of vanes comprises a second quantity, wherein the first quantity equals the second quantity (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Ree further discloses that each of the first plurality of vanes is aligned with one of the second plurality of vanes such that two opposing vanes are at equal radial positions during rotation of the tapered rotary disc pump (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Ree further discloses that each of the plurality of standoffs is orthogonal to the first disc and the second disc (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 5.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 6.
Regarding claims 21, 23 and 25, the Ree further discloses that the respective inner surface comprises a first boundary edge and a second boundary edge formed by adjacent vanes, wherein the first boundary edge and the second boundary edge are each substantially linear (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 22, 24 and 26, Ree further discloses that the first boundary edge and the second boundary edge converge towards a center portion of the first disc or the second disc (Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ree US 9534601 in view of Geldenhuys US 8210816 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Jimenez US 11680578.
Regarding claim 11, the combination does not teach that the vane leading face further comprising a convex portion and a concave portion, wherein the concave portion extends from the respective inner surface toward the convex portion, and the convex portion extends from the concave portion to the vane trailing face.
Jimenez so teaches (Fig. 5). Since the combination of Ree and Geldenhuys as well as Jimenez teach slurry impellers either with a flat taper or a curved taper, and applicant has not disclosed that having the curved taper solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the flat taper of the combination by utilizing the known technique of a curved taper, as taught by Jimenez, in order to achieve the predictable result of reducing wear and maintaining efficiency longer. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(C).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
