DETAILED ACTION
Claims 10 September 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Applicant’s fig 3
Claim 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 5154587) in view of Shenoy (US 2019/0089290).
PNG
media_image2.png
628
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Mori fig 3
Claim 1, Mori discloses a fluid pump (fig 3, abstract) comprising:
a pump casing (casing 3, made of front casing 17 and rear casing 16);
an impeller (impeller 8) arranged in the pump casing (impeller 8 is in 17); and
a motor (28) for driving the impeller to rotate in the pump casing (c 6 ln 7-15), the motor comprising a stator (fig 1 shows an outer stator) and a rotor (fig 3, 9a driven magnet) connecting to the impeller (fig 3 shows 9a is connected to 8);
wherein a motor shaft (shaft 6) is fixed arranged in the fluid pump, one end of the motor shaft is connected to the pump casing (shaft 6 is connected to 17 via bearing 5),
the impeller and the rotor are rotatably placed around the motor shaft (fig 3 shows impeller 8 and rotor 9a around shaft 6), and
a washer (bearing 5) is placed around the motor shaft (bearing 5 is shrink fit around the shaft 6, c 4 ln 5) and axially sandwiched between the pump casing and the rotor (fig 3 shows 5 between the casing 17 and rotor 9a), for limiting an axial movement of the rotor and the impeller (bearing 5 receives the axial thrust bearing load, c 4 ln 39-40).
Mori is silent on the motor comprising a stator.
Shenoy teaches an analogous motor can pump (par 0003) with an electric motor that includes an electric stator surrounding an electric rotor (par 0012) and a magnetic coupling of permanent magnets across a containment sleeve at the pump (para 0012-0014).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the generic motor of Mori with the electric motor with stator of Shenoy in order to drive the motor drive shaft and cause the pump to operate based on conventional electric power.
Claim 2, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 1, wherein the washer comprises a first end (Mori, fig 3, end of bearing 5 toward inlet 20) and a second end (end of bearing 5 in contact with buffer member 42) opposite to the first end, the first end is axially abutted against the pump casing (fig 3 shows bearing 5 abutted against casing 17), and the second end is axially abutted against the rotor (fig 3 shows bearing 5 against rotor 9a via thrust bearing 22 and buffer 42, c 4 ln 31-43), an outer diameter of the first end is less than an outer diameter of the second end (fig 3, shows the tip of bearing cone shape as a smaller diameter than the base of the cone shape).
Claim 3, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 2, wherein an end face of the second end of the washer defines one or more communicating grooves (Mori, fig 3, heat discharging hole 5c) radially extending through the washer (fig 3 shows heat discharging hole 5c extending axially through bearing 5).
Claim 4, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 2, wherein a center of the pump casing (Mori, axial center of casing 17 has bearing 5 and the shaft) is formed with a first shaft seat (fig 3, the face of the shaft 6 in the shrink fit connection between shaft 6 and bearing 5, c 4 ln 5), one end of the motor shaft is inserted and fixed into the first shaft seat (id), the first end of the washer is abutted against an end surface of the first shaft seat (bearing 5 is against the seat of shaft 6 in the shrink fit).
Mori is silent on the outer diameter of the first end is not greater than an outer diameter of the end surface of the first shaft seat.
Nevertheless, the outer diameter of the first end is not greater than an outer diameter of the end surface of the first shaft seat is an obvious change in size or proportion (MPEP 2144.04). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), 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 this case, Mori bearing 5 has a conical shaped first end, and an outer diameter of the shaft 6 first end, but does not disclose the relative dimensions to either the first end of the bearing 5 or the shaft 6 first end. In Mori, the two surfaces are at separate ends of bearing 5, and their relative diameters would have no reasonable effect on the connection formed between the two surface. Therefore, any change in the relative dimensions would not perform differently than the arrangement in shown in Mori, showing that the claimed ratio is not patentably distinct. Therefore, the relative dimensions of the elements in claim 4 are rejected as obvious under Mori in view of Shenoy.
Claim 5, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 2, wherein the washer further comprises a flow- guiding portion disposed between the first end and the second end (fig 3 shows bearing 5 with a flow guiding cone shape, similar to applicant’s cone washer shape 40), and an outer diameter of the flow-guiding portion gradually increases from the first end to the second end (fig 3, bearing 5 has this increasing diameter in the same way as applicant’s increasing diameter of 40 in applicant’s fig 3).
Claim 7, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 2, wherein the second end of the washer passes through the impeller and abuts against the rotor (Mori, fig 3 shows bearing 5 with buffer 42 and thrust bearing 22 against rotor 9a with impeller 8), the second end and the impeller are radially gap-fitted (fig 3 there is a gap between thrust bearings 22 and the rolling bearing 7 portion of the rotor, c 6 ln 23-25, 50-55; furthermore there is a gap of the thrust washer 22 and buffer 42 between the rotor and the bearing 5).
Claim 8, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 7, wherein the rotor comprises a bearing mounted (Mori, rolling bearing 7, c 3 ln 15-20; c 6 ln 23) on the motor shaft adjacent to the impeller, the second end of the washer abuts against the bearing (fig 3 shows bearing 5 separated from rolling bearing 7 via thrust washer 22 and buffer 42; c 6 ln 23-50).
Claim 9, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 2.
Mori is silent on wherein an inner cavity of the second end of the washer is non-circular, and a cross-section of the end of the motor shaft corresponding to the washer is also non-circular, the washer and the motor shaft are circumferentially positioned through shape fitting.
Nevertheless, the inner cavity of the washer is non-circular and a cross-section of the end of the motor shaft is non-circular is an obvious change in shape (MPEP 2144.04). The rule is that a change of shape is an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, See 2144.04(IV)(B)). In this case, applicant does not disclose any particular benefit to any particular non-circular shape and lists several option non-circular shapes as examples; and only offers that the non-circular shapes are matched in order to form a fitting connection (See applicant’s par 0045). Therefore an connection of any shape would be obvious as long as it formed the same fitting connection.
Mori analogously discloses that the motor shaft and washer are shrink fit together to form a shrink fit connection (Mori, c 4 ln 5-15); it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to match the shapes between two element in a shrink fit connection in order to make the shrink fit, thereby meeting the limitation.
Furthermore, applicant discloses that the non-circular fit may instead be made with a circumferential tight fit (Applicant’s par 0045). Since Mori reasonably teaches the same tight fit (Mori’s shrink fit, c 4 ln 5-15), it is clear that a shrink fit will fulfill the function of either a non-circular shape or a circular shape, and therefore make the election of either shape an obvious design choice.
Claim 10, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 1, further comprising a sleeve (Mori, fig 3 shows a sleeve between motor can 10 and magnet 9a) separating the stator from the rotor and impeller (11 and 9a are inside of the sleeve, the motor stator is outside of the sleeve), wherein a second shaft seat (bearing 4) is formed at a center of the sleeve (fig 3 shows bearing 4 is at the center of the sleeve), and the other end of the motor shaft is fixed in the second shaft seat (fig 3 shows shaft 6 in bearing 4).
Claim 11, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 1, wherein the rotor comprises a rotor core (Mori, impeller 11 and the magnet 9a holder), one or more permanent magnets (9a), two bearings (bearing 7 inner surface, and thrust bearings 41 and 22), and a rotor shell (fig 3 motor can 10) encapsulating the rotor core, the permanent magnets and the bearings (motor can 10 surrounds a portion of impeller 11, the member 40, magnets 9a, and bearing 7, 41 and 22) through injection molding (injection molding is product by process and shall not be considered limiting; the method of manufacture does not affect the encapsulation of the elements by the motor can, MPEP 2113 ), the rotor is rotatably connected to the motor shaft through the two bearings (shaft 6 is connected to impeller 8 via rolling bearing 7 and thrust bearings 22 and 41 when rotating and providing an axial thrust).
Claim 12, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 11.
Mori is silent on wherein the impeller is also injection molded with the rotor shell. Nevertheless, Mori shows the impeller 8 and rotor 9a are in a single unit. Injection molding is product by process and shall not be considered limiting (the method of manufacture does not affect the encapsulation of the elements by the motor can, MPEP 2113). Since the impeller 8 and rotor 9a are depicted as a single unit, whether they were joined in an injection molded process or some other process does not change that the elements are connected together in a single unit, therefore that the limitation is directed to a non-limiting product by process.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Shenoy in view of Wahl (US 2008/0080965).
Claim 6, Mori in view of Shenoy teaches the fluid pump of claim 5.
Mori is silent on wherein the washer further comprises a neck portion arranged between the first end and the flow-guiding portion, an outer diameter of the neck portion is less than the outer diameter of the first end.
Whal teaches a centrifugal pump with an suction inlet (fig 1, impeller 18, par 0056) and a second centrifugal wheel (14), where the impeller comprises a neck portion (narrow portion between 18 and 14) arranged between the first end (forward portion of 18, till it thicker bulge) and a flow-guiding portion (exit of wheel 14), an outer diameter of the neck portion is less than the outer diameter of the first end (the necked portion between 14 and 18 is narrower than the thick portion of impeller 18). Wherein the changes is size at the neck near element (48) create an axial balancing system (32) which generates an axial take-up force between the high pressure flow and low pressure flow impellers (par 0065-0066) which counteracts axial stresses on the pump and thereby relieve bearing stresses (par 0059-0069).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the bearing 5 of Mori by adding a neck dividing a low pressure and high pressure zone as taught by Wahl, thereby causing an axial balancing force to relieve bearing stress and improve the longevity of the thrust bearings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hembree (US 7,101,158) shows an analogous canned pump with a suction cone at a front bearing.
Matsunaga (US 8,753,068) shows an analogous canned pump with a suction cone at a front bearing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights