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 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The numerical values 1,5 ; 0,25 ; and 0,5 are represented with commas in claims 3 and 8. This is not consistent with claim 1 which uses a decimal point for 0.3. Decimal points are the standard in the United States for representing decimals rather than commas. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “the seal member is displaceable in the circumferential direction in relation to the clamping member an angle α that is equal to or less than ± 3 degrees” may be interpreted in the following manner. If the seal member is displaceable 5 degrees then it is also may be considered displaceable 3 degrees of less. In other words the claim does not require that the most displacement of the seal member possible is 3 degrees or less. The claim only requires that seal member is capable of being displaced 3 degrees or less.
The same logic applies to claim 3 as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 4 and 5 recite first / second engagement means respectively are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) due to the additional structure recited.
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 9 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the outer seal ring” has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear if claim 9 should depend from claim 7 or if the outer seal ring has less requirements in claim 9 than compared to claim 7. Furthermore, it is unclear if the outer seal ring is an additional element or part of the seal ring. For purposes of examination, the outer seal ring may simply be considered an outer portion of the seal ring.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites, “wherein the centrifugal pump is constituted by a heating circulation pump”. First, the examiner finds there is no clear definition of what is required for a pump to be a heating circulation pump or not. Second, it is unclear how these requirements are applied to the claimed elements. For example, a heating circulation pump may be at least partially defined by the application (larger overall system) the pump is in rather than the pump itself. This results in a lack of clarity of what is structurally required of the pump itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krill et al. (WO2025157836) hereinafter Krill.
See the attached translations for paragraph numbers cited below.
Regarding claim 1, Krill discloses:
A centrifugal pump {Figure 6, the whole structure; [0002]} comprising: an axial direction, and
- a hydraulic unit connected to the drive unit {Figure 6, non-motor portion of what is shown; [0002]} and comprising:
- an inlet and an outlet {Figure 6 (40) is an inlet, the radially outer part of (50) is an outlet not shown ; the outlet is implicitly part of the pump, see MPEP 2144.01 },
- a housing defining a volute {Figure 6, housing (50) interior defines a volute},
- an impeller connected to the drive shaft and located in said volute {Figure 6, impeller (6) is connected to a drive shaft at the top of the figure and is located in the volute},
wherein the impeller comprises a lower cover disc {Figure 6, the lower cover disc is where the leader (4a) points},
an upper cover disc {Figure 6, the upper cover disc is in the region near where the leader of (1) points} and
at least on vane extending between and connecting said lower cover disc and said upper cover disc {Figure 6, the vanes are shown but not labeled extending between the lower and upper cover discs}, and
- a sealing arrangement connected to the housing and configured for sealing between an inlet of the lower cover disc of the impeller and the housing {Figure 6, (30) and (31) are connected to the housing and configured for sealing between the inlet of (1) and the housing (50); [0031]},
wherein the sealing arrangement comprises a circumferential seal member and a clamping member {Figure 6 (30) is a circumferential seal member; (31) is a clamping seal member},
wherein the seal member is clamped in the axial direction between the clamping member and the housing {Figure 6 (30) is clamped in the axial direction between (31) and (50); [0031]},
wherein the seal member is displaceable in the radial direction in relation to the clamping member {Figure 6 (30) is displaceable in the radial direction in relation to (31) based on (32) accommodating small movement of (30); [0031]},
wherein the seal member comprises a first engagement means {Figure 5 the first engagement means is (34) which are part of seal member (30) and engage with the grooves of (33)} and
the clamping member comprises a second engagement means configured to cooperate with the first engagement means of the seal member {Figure 5 (33) are the second engagement means which engage with (34) of seal member (30); [0033]}.
Krill discloses that the seal member and clamping member have a rotationally fixed connection in [0033] and shows Figure 5 shows a slight gap for between (34) and (34). Krill is silent regarding the exact dimensions, the size of the gap, and amount of play between the seal member relative to the clamping member. Krill is therefore silent regarding:
wherein the sealing arrangement has a play in the circumferential direction between the first engagement means and the second engagement means whereby the seal member is displaceable in the circumferential direction in relation to the clamping member an angle α that is equal to or less than ± 3 degrees, and
whereby the seal member is displaceable in the circumferential direction in relation to the clamping member an angle α that is equal to or more than ± 0.3 degrees.
Since Krill does not disclose the exact dimensions of the seal member and clamping member, the size of the gap, or amount of play between the seal member relative to the clamping member, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an angular displaceable amount between seal member relative to the clamping member of Krill be an angle less than 3 degrees, but more than 0.3 degrees (see claim interpretation section as well). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the desired gap is implicitly small so that the seal member and clamping member are essentially rotationally fixed as described in [0033] of Krill. Also, at the same time a small gap is present for ease of assembly and would be at least partially determined by tolerances and manufacturing; looser tolerances enabled by a gap would reduce manufacturing costs. Lastly, Krill recognizes that slight movements of the sealing ring help to compensate for deviations in the impeller surface it contacts of (10a) as described in [0019]/ [0031].
Regarding claim 2, Krill discloses:
wherein the seal member is displaceable in the radial direction in relation to the clamping member, during operation of the centrifugal pump, forced by the lower cover disc of the impeller {Figure 6 (30) is radially displaceable based on interactions with the impeller via (32); [0031]}.
Regarding claim 3, Krill discloses:
wherein the seal member is displaceable in the circumferential direction in relation to the clamping member an angle α that is equal to or less than ± 1,5 degrees {The claim interpretation section presents an interpretation where the obviousness rejection of claim 1 would also teach that an angle α is less than 1.5 degrees. This is because there is nothing stopping the rotation of the seal member being less than 1.5 degrees. Therefore, it is capable of being displaced less than 1.5 degrees even if it could be potentially displaced more than 1.5 degrees}.
Regarding claim 4, Krill discloses:
wherein the first engagement means of the seal member is constituted by at least one projection extending in the radial direction {Figure 5 the first engagement means is (34) which a projection extending in the radial projection of the seal member (30)}.
Regarding claim 5, Krill discloses:
wherein the second engagement means of the clamping member is constituted by at least one recess extending in the radial direction {Figure 5 (33) are the second engagement means which are recesses of the clamping member (31); [0033]}.
Regarding claim 6, Krill discloses:
wherein the clamping member is ring-shaped, and is in press-fit connection with the housing {Figure 6 (31) is placed and fixed to the housing (50) in a rotationally fixed manner and immovably in the axial direction, [0031]. Figure 6 shows an interference at the radially outer edge of (31) and (50) which is a press-fit (also no screws or other attachment features are shown)}.
Regarding claim 9, Krill discloses:
wherein the seal member comprises a flange connected to and extending from the outer seal ring outwards in the radial direction {Figure 6, the upper portion of (30) is a flange that extends outwards in a radial direction and extends from the outer portion of the lower part of the seal ring (outer seal ring). See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above},
wherein the clamping member clamp said flange in the axial direction {Figure 6, (32) clamps the flange in the axial direction; [0031]}.
Regarding claim 10, Krill discloses:
wherein the seal member is made of rubber or plastic {Figure 6, a portion of (30) may be made of plastic; [0042]}.
Regarding claim 12, Krill discloses:
wherein the centrifugal pump is constituted by a heating circulation pump {See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. The examiner finds that the claimed elements may be used with other elements that constitute a system that makes the pump be considered a heating circulation pump}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krill et al. (WO2025157836) hereinafter Krill in view of Yu et al. (CN203404122) hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 7, Krill discloses the centrifugal pump of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the seal member comprises an inner seal ring and an outer seal ring connected to each other,
wherein an inlet of the lower cover disc of the impeller is located between the inner seal ring and the outer seal ring of the seal member.
Yu discloses:
wherein the seal member comprises an inner seal ring and an outer seal ring connected to each other {Figure 2 (50) has an inner seal ring radially inward of (21) and an outer seal ring radially outward of (21)},
wherein an inlet of the lower cover disc of the impeller is located between the inner seal ring and the outer seal ring of the seal member {Figure 2 (21) is an inlet of the lower cover disc and is located between the inner and outer seal ring as described above}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have inner and outer seal rings with their position relative to the lower disk of the impeller as taught by Yu for the seal ring of Krill. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as both one-sided seal rings as shown in Figure 1 and inner / outer seal ring structures as shown in Figure 2 are alternative / substitute sealing structures {Yu Figures 1 and 2}. The inner / outer seal ring structure also reduces leakage and increases efficiency {Yu [0022]}
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krill in view of Yu as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Liu et al. (CN103307020) hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Krill and Yu further teaches:
wherein there is a gap in the radial/transversal direction between the inlet of the lower cover disc of the impeller and the inner seal ring {Yu Figure 2, there is a gap (60) between (21) and the radially inner portion of (50)}, and
there is a gap in the radial/transversal direction between the inlet of the lower cover disc of the impeller and the outer seal ring, during ordinary operation of the pump {Yu Figure 2, there is a gap analogous to (60) between (21) and the radially outer portion of (50)}.
Yu does teach a prior art clearance of 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm for the configuration of Figure 1 {[0003]}.
The combination of Krill and Yu is silent regarding the precise dimensions of the gaps and is therefore silent regarding:
wherein said gaps are equal to or more than 0,25 mm and equal to or less than 0,5 mm.
Liu pertains to centrifugal pumps. Liu teaches:
wherein said gaps are equal to or more than 0,25 mm and equal to or less than 0,5 mm {Figure 2, [0006] describes an adjustable gap of 0.5 mm with maximum adjustable gap to be 0.7mm causes each gaps on either side radially to be between the claimed range}.
Since Krill does not disclose the radial gaps between the inner/outer seal ring and the lower cover disc inlet, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the gaps be between 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this is a standard amount of gap in similar applications {Yu [0003]} and allows for radial adjustment of the sealing ring and reduces friction between the impeller and the seal {Liu [0006]}.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krill et al. (WO2025157836) hereinafter Krill in view of Brown et al. (U.S Patent 6,234,748) hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 11, Krill discloses the centrifugal pump of claim 1, but is silent regarding the material of the clamping member.
Brown pertains to centrifugal pumps. Brown teaches:
wherein the clamping member is made of metal {Brown Column 5 lines 39-51}.
Since Krill does not disclose the material of the clamping member, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen metal as taught by Brown. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as metal materials can be corrosion-resistant and may be press-fit in place to act as a retainer and are known alternatives to other types of materials {Brown Column 5 lines 39-51}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kilbane (U.S Patent 3,512,788) discloses a self-adjusting wear ring that forms a seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights