DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 04 May 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 04 May 2026 stating that the amendments to claims 1 and 12 pertaining to “pressure differential” overcome the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered. While the previously applied references do not disclose “a pressure differential created by the respective inverted expulsion chambers becomes increasingly perpendicular”, it is noted that such a recitation is both unclear and/or not sufficiently described by the disclosure - see corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a cross section of each of the plurality of inverted expulsion chambers has a backward swept geometry for which a pressure differential created by the respective inverted expulsion chamber becomes increasingly perpendicular to a radius of the impeller from an end of the inverted expulsion chamber closest to the hub toward an end of the inverted expulsion chamber closest to the outer perimeter” (emphasis added) was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure is silent as to a “pressure differential” becoming “increasingly perpendicular” - rather, the disclosure indicates that such “increasingly perpendicular” relationship is embodied by a line defining and/or corresponding with a “pressure differential”. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 12. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a cross section of each of the plurality of inverted expulsion chambers has a backward swept geometry for which a pressure differential created by the respective inverted expulsion chamber becomes increasingly perpendicular to a radius of the impeller from an end of the inverted expulsion chamber closest to the hub toward an end of the inverted expulsion chamber closest to the outer perimeter” (emphasis added) was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Insofar as the instant limitation is considered to mean that such “increasingly perpendicular” relationship is embodied by a line corresponding with a “pressure differential”, it is noted that the disclosure does not define any of the conditions (e.g., a threshold of the differential) for evaluating what constitutes a “pressure differential”. Furthermore, all pressure values in a fluid are interdependent, and the disclosure does not describe what constitutes a “pressure differential created by the respective inverted expulsion chamber” (emphasis added) to allow isolation/identification of such apart from other contributions to “pressure differential”. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 12. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a pressure differential created by the respective inverted expulsion chamber becomes increasingly perpendicular” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear how a pressure differential can have an orientation (note: a pressure differential is a scalar quantity, not a vector). Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 12. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “[connection] for… the first surface and the second surface” renders the claim indefinite since it is contradictory to the combination of antecedent limitations “a first surface extending between the leading edge and the trough point” and “a second surface extending between the trailing edge and the trough point”, which implies that “first surface” and “second surface” do not connect to each other. Alternatively, the instant limitation renders the claim indefinite since, in light of the disclosure, it represents the same element of the antecedent limitation “trough point”, thereby failing to use proper antecedent basis practice and/or resulting in a conflict or inconsistency with the disclosure. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 18. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 5 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 5, 18, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turner (US 3,535,051; previously cited).
In reference to claim 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Turner discloses:
An impeller (10) for a centrifugal pump, the impeller comprising:
a shroud (18) comprising a substantially planar circular section of material;
a hub (20) disposed in the center of the shroud, the hub configured to connect the impeller to a driveshaft for rotation in a preferred direction; and
wherein an outer surface of the shroud includes a plurality of inverted expulsion chambers (22), wherein each inverted expulsion chamber comprises a channel-shaped relief in the shroud extending (see Figure 2) from a location proximate to the center of the shroud toward an outer perimeter of the shroud,
wherein a cross section of each of the plurality of inverted expulsion chambers comprises a leading edge (i.e., the edge formed by the intersection of surface 22b with the outer surface of shroud 18 - see Figure 5), a trough point (see Figure 5), a first surface (22b - Figure 5) extending between the leading edge and the trough point, a trailing edge (i.e., the edge formed by the intersection of surface 22a with the outer surface of shroud 18 - see Figure 5), a second surface (22a - Figure 5) extending between the trailing edge and the trough point, and fillets at connections for a surface of the shroud at the leading edge and the first surface, the first surface and the second surface, and the second surface and the surface of the shroud at the trailing edge (note: there are no point discontinuities in physical reality - accordingly, all of the claimed connections in Turner are rounded and, thus, fillets; there is no limitation on fillet that distinguishes over the connections of Turner), and
wherein the first surface and the second surface are asymmetrical (see Figure 5) relative to the trough point.
In reference to claim 5
Turner discloses:
The impeller of claim 7, wherein a cross section of at least one of the plurality of inverted expulsion chambers (22) has more than one depth (due to the angled orientation of surfaces 22a and 22b) between the trough point and the outer surface of the shroud (18) adjacent the leading and the trailing edge.
In reference to claim 18 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Turner discloses:
A method of manufacturing an impeller (10) for a centrifugal pump, the method comprising:
forming a shroud (18) comprising a substantially planar circular section of material; and
disposing a hub (20) in a center of the shroud, the hub configured to connect the impeller to a driveshaft for rotation in a preferred direction,
wherein an outer surface of the shroud includes a plurality of inverted expulsion chambers (22), wherein each inverted expulsion chamber comprises a channel-shaped relief in the shroud extending from a location proximate to the center of the shroud toward an outer perimeter of the shroud,
wherein a cross section of each of the plurality of inverted expulsion chambers comprises a leading edge (i.e., the edge formed by the intersection of surface 22b with the outer surface of shroud 18 - see Figure 5), a trough point (see Figure 5), a first surface (22b) extending between the leading edge and the trough point, a trailing edge (i.e., the edge formed by the intersection of surface 22a with the outer surface of shroud 18 - see Figure 5), a second surface (22a) extending between the trailing edge and the trough point, and fillets at connections for a surface of the shroud at the leading edge and the first surface, the first surface and the second surface, and the second surface and the surface of the shroud at the trailing edge (note: there are no point discontinuities in physical reality - accordingly, all of the claimed connections in Turner are rounded and, thus, fillets; there is no limitation on fillet that distinguishes over the connections of Turner), and
wherein the first surface and the second surface are asymmetrical (see Figure 5) relative to the trough point.
In reference to claim 16
Turner discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein a cross section of at least one of the plurality of inverted expulsion chambers (22) has more than one depth (due to the angled orientation of surfaces 22a and 22b) between the trough point and the outer surface of the shroud (18) adjacent the leading and the trailing edge.
Examiner’s Comment
Although claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19, and 20 are not rejected over prior art, patentability cannot be determined in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights