DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 19376936 (reference application; by “COAVIS”, instant application is by “COAVIS CO., LTD”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application uses the term “partition plate” to describe the identical structure of “cap plate” in the instant application. Both plates are structurally between the impeller and circuit board stator and block fluid from flowing from the impeller with the magnet to the circuit board stator.
While the instant claim 1 includes a “first housing” and a “second housing,” the copending application claims only “a housing.” In the copending application applicant discloses that the “housing” comprises an upper housing and a lower housing (co pending application, par 0024). Therefore the scope of “a housing” includes at least a first housing and a second housing and anticipates the instant claim 1.
Furthermore, the additional details of the impeller in the copending application claim 1, provide one-way distinctness of the copending application; however, those details do not prevent anticipation of the instant claim 1, showing that the instant claim 1 is not distinct from the copending application claim 6 dependent on 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “the magnet is disposed only between the impeller and the cap plate.” It is unclear what applicant intends as the scope of the “only between.” One reasonable interpretation is that the magnet does not protrude outside of the bounds of the impeller and the cap. A second reasonable interpretation is that there are no intervening structures between either the magnet and the impeller or between the magnet and the cap plate. If it is meant to signify that there are no intervening structures, it is further unclear how to interpret the magnet yoke which is between the magnet and the impeller.
Additionally, “only between” is a broad term and applicant has not specified the direction of the betweenness. The o-ring seal (applicant’ fig 3, 160) is also between the magnet and the cap plate.
Therefore, the intended scope of “only between” is unclear and claim 2 is rejected for indefiniteness.
For the limited purpose of evaluation, “only between” will be interpreted as the magnet not protruding above the impeller or below the cap plate in a direction in parallel with the shaft.
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 1, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Porat (WO 2023082002).
Claim 1, Porat discloses a motor pump (100), comprising: a first housing (102A); an impeller (118) disposed in the first housing (shown in fig 2); a magnet (128A) restrainedly mounted on the impeller (par 0042) and disposed to form a magnetic flux in a direction parallel to a rotating shaft (114) of the impeller (regarding magnetic flux, it is a scientific principle that magnetic flux lines curve 360 degrees between north and south poles of a magnet; since in the stator and rotor are separated by the shaft, there will be flux lines that couple the stator and rotor that run parallel to the shaft; this is conventional behavior of the axial gap motor of both Porat and applicant’s disclosed invention); a second housing (102B) coupled to the first housing; a circuit board (PCB 110) disposed in the second housing and having a coil pattern (fig 5a-5c show coil patterns) formed thereon that generates the magnetic flux in the direction parallel to the rotating shaft by electrical control to interact with the magnet (par 0046, 0053-0057); and a cap plate (PCB can be 6 layers, par 0046; upper layer of PCB can be considered a cap plate under a BRI) disposed at an upper portion of the circuit board (topmost layer of the PCB) and configured to block fluid flowing toward a lower portion of the circuit board (as seen in fig 4d, the fluid of the topmost layer of the PCB diverts fluid to the lower portion of the PCB).
Claim 12, Porat discloses a motor pump (100), comprising: a housing (102A); an impeller (118) disposed in the housing; a magnet (128A) restrainedly mounted on the impeller and disposed to form a magnetic flux in a direction parallel to a rotating shaft (114) of the impeller (regarding magnetic flux, it is a scientific principle that magnetic flux lines curve 360 degrees between north and south poles of a magnet; since in the stator and rotor are separated by the shaft, there will be flux lines that couple the stator and rotor that run parallel to the shaft; this is conventional behavior of the axial gap motor of both Porat and applicant’s disclosed invention); a circuit board (PCB 110) having a coil pattern (fig 5a-5c show coil patterns) formed thereon that generates the magnetic flux in the direction parallel to the rotating shaft by electrical control within the housing to interact with the magnet (par 0046, 0053-0057); and a cap plate (PCB can be 6 layers, par 0046; upper layer of PCB can be considered a cap plate under a BRI) attached to the housing at an upper portion of the circuit board (topmost layer of the PCB) and configured to block fluid flowing toward a lower portion of the circuit board (as seen in fig 4d, the fluid of the topmost layer of the PCB diverts fluid to the lower portion of the PCB).
Claim 13, Porat discloses a housing assembly (102A, 102B) for a motor pump (100), comprising: a second housing (102B) formed to be coupled to a first housing (102A) in which a rotor including a magnet (128A) is housed; a circuit board (PCB 110) disposed in the second housing, and having a coil pattern (fig 5a-5c show coil patterns) formed thereon that generates the magnetic flux in a direction parallel to a rotating shaft (114) of the rotor by electrical control to interact with the rotor (par 0046, 0053-0057); and a cap plate (PCB can be 6 layers, par 0046; upper layer of PCB can be considered a cap plate under a BRI) disposed at an upper portion of the circuit board (topmost layer of the PCB) and attached to the second housing so as to seal an internal space between the circuit board and the second housing (as seen in fig 4d, the fluid of the topmost layer of the PCB diverts fluid to the lower portion of the PCB).
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kricker (US 5,332,374) in view of Porat (WO 2023082002).
Claim 1, Kricker discloses a motor pump (abstract), comprising: a first housing (fig 1, 12); an impeller (22) disposed in the first housing; a magnet (permanent magnets 32) restrainedly mounted on the impeller (magnets 32 secured to the impeller by screws 35, c 2 ln 54-57) and disposed to form a magnetic flux in a direction parallel to a rotating shaft (sleeve bearing 25 is a cylinder that rotates with the impeller, c 2 ln 17-24; the sleeve shape is a hollow shaft under a BRI) of the impeller (regarding magnetic flux, it is a scientific principle that magnetic flux lines curve 360 degrees between north and south poles of a magnet; since in the stator and rotor are separated by the shaft, there will be flux lines that couple the stator and rotor that run parallel to the shaft; this is conventional behavior of the axial gap motor of Kricker and applicant; furthermore magnetic attraction between the stator and motor does occur which indicates flux lines as claimed, c 2 ln 35-36); a second housing (18) coupled to the first housing (12, coupled via screw B); a [stator] (46) disposed in the second housing and having a coil pattern (stator coils 46) formed thereon that generates the magnetic flux in the direction parallel to the … shaft by electrical control to interact with the magnet (external control means 60, c 3 ln 60-66, c 1 ln 48); and a cap plate (seal plate 36) disposed at an upper portion of the [stator] and configured to block fluid flowing toward a lower portion of the circuit board (seal plate prevents leakage from the pump toward the stator windings, c 1 ln 40-42).
Kricker does not disclose that the stator is in the form of a circuit board.
Nevertheless, applicant’s circuit board is disclosed as the element having the stator coil pattern (Applicant’s par 0023, 0024, 0043); where the circuit board may have any known planar or three-dimensional winding pattern of the coils (par 0043) and that the circuit board has the terminal connection 145 (par 0044). Therefore, replacement of Kricker’s stator with a PCB stator would meet applicant’s claimed board.
Porat teaches an analogous axial gap pump with the stator in the form of a printed circuit board (par 0002). 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 replace the stator of Kricker with the PCB stator of Porat to reduce the weight of the stator and manufacture the stator using PCB equipment.
Claim 2, Kricker makes obvious the motor pump of claim 1, wherein the magnet is disposed only between the impeller and the cap plate (fig 1, magnet 32 is located between 36 and 22).
Claim 3, Kricker makes obvious the motor pump of claim 1, wherein the magnet is integrally attached to the impeller by overmolding (permanent magnets are sealed within the recess of the impeller by an epoxy molding compound, c 2 ln 65 – c 3 ln 2; molding compound sealing within the recess of an object meets the plain meaning of “overmolding”).
Claim 4, Kricker makes obvious the motor pump of claim 3, further comprising: a first yoke (Kricker, magnetic core 28, c 2 ln 56) disposed between the magnet and the impeller (fig 1 shows core 28 between magnet 32 and impeller 22).
Claim 5, Kricker makes obvious the motor pump of claim 1, further comprising: a second yoke (Kricker, magnetic return yoke 44, c 3 ln 23) disposed on a lower surface of the circuit board [stator] (fig 1 shows 44 beneath coils 46).
Claim 8, Kricker makes obvious the motor pump of claim 1, wherein the cap plate is formed of a non-magnetic material (seal plate 36 is non-magnetic, c 3 ln 8-11).
Claim 9, Kricker makes obvious the motor pump of claim 1, wherein the cap plate is formed of a resin material (seal plate 36 may be made of resin, c 3 ln 8-11).
Claim 11, Kricker makes obvious The motor pump of claim 1, further comprising: at least one sealing disposed between the cap plate (36) and the first housing (12) on a center side or an edge side of the cap plate (the plate 36 is clamped at both the center and at the edge; the center, c 3 ln 15-18; the edge, c 3 ln 13-15; the clamping creates a sealed relationship between the housing at recess surface/rabbet joint 38 and stub shaft 20, c 3 ln 3-10, c 4 ln 37-38).
Claim 12, Kricker discloses a motor pump (abstract), comprising: a housing (fig 1, 12); an impeller (22) disposed in the housing; a magnet (permanent magnets 32) restrainedly mounted on the impeller (magnets 32 secured to impelled by screws 35, c 2 ln 54-57) and disposed to form a magnetic flux in a direction parallel to a rotating shaft (sleeve bearing 25 is a cylinder that rotates with the impeller, c 2 ln 17-24; the sleeve shape is a hollow shaft under a BRI) of the impeller (sleeve bearing 25 of the impeller); a [stator] (46) having a coil pattern (stator coils 46) formed thereon that generates the magnetic flux in the direction parallel to the rotating shaft (this is conventional behavior of the axial gap motor of Kricker and applicant; furthermore magnetic attraction between the stator and motor does occur which indicates flux lines as claimed, c 2 ln 35-36) by electrical control within the housing to interact with the magnet (controller 60 changes the voltage to the stator windings in phase relation; the motor is within the housing, c 3 ln 60-65); and a cap plate (seal plate 36) attached to the housing at an upper portion of the [stator] and configured to block fluid flowing toward a lower portion of the [stator] (seal plate prevents leakage from the pump toward the stator windings, c 1 ln 40-42).
Kricker does not disclose that the stator is in the form of a circuit board.
Nevertheless, applicant’s circuit board is disclosed as the element having the stator coil pattern (Applicant’s par 0023, 0024, 0043); where the circuit board may have any known planar or three-dimensional winding pattern of the coils (par 0043) and that the circuit board has the terminal connection 145 (par 0044). Therefore, replacement of Kricker’s stator with a PCB stator would meet applicant’s claimed board.
Porat teaches an analogous axial gap pump with the stator in the form of a printed circuit board (par 0002).
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 replace the stator of Kricker with the PCB stator of Porat to reduce the weight of the stator and manufacture the stator using PCB equipment.
Claim 13, Kricker discloses a housing assembly (fig 1, 12) for a motor pump (abstract), comprising: a second housing (18) formed to be coupled to a first housing (18 and 12 coupled via screw B, c 2 ln 10-13) in which a rotor (impeller 22) including a magnet (permanent magnets 32) is housed; a [stator] (46) disposed in the second housing, and having a coil pattern (stator coils 46) formed thereon that generates the magnetic flux in a direction parallel to a rotating shaft (25) of the rotor (this is conventional behavior of the axial gap motor of Kricker and applicant; furthermore magnetic attraction between the stator and motor does occur which indicates flux lines as claimed, c 2 ln 35-36) by electrical control to interact with the rotor (external control means 60, c 3 ln 60-66, c 1 ln 48); and a cap plate (seal plate 36) disposed at an upper portion of the circuit board and attached to the second housing so as to seal an internal space between the circuit board and the second housing (seal plate prevents leakage from the pump toward the stator windings, c 1 ln 40-42).
Kricker does not disclose that the stator is in the form of a circuit board.
Nevertheless, applicant’s circuit board is disclosed as the element having the stator coil pattern (Applicant’s par 0023, 0024, 0043); where the circuit board may have any known planar or three-dimensional winding pattern of the coils (par 0043) and that the circuit board has the terminal connection 145 (par 0044). Therefore, replacement of Kricker’s stator with a PCB stator would meet applicant’s claimed board.
Porat teaches an analogous axial gap pump with the stator in the form of a printed circuit board (par 0002).
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 replace the stator of Kricker with the PCB stator of Porat to reduce the weight of the stator and manufacture the stator using PCB equipment.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kricker in view of Porat in view of Kim (US 11781566).
Claim 6, Kricker in view of Porat makes obvious the motor pump of claim 1. Kricker is silent wherein edges of the first housing and the second housing are joined by fusion.
Kim teaches an analogous water pump housing made of resin using fusion of melted resin in order to increase coupling force (c 6 ln 55-60).
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 manufacture the housing of Kricker of resin and join by using the fusion method taught by Kim in order to use lower cost resin suitable for mass production in molds and to use the fusion to increase coupling force.
Claim 7, Kricker in view of Porat makes obvious the motor pump of claim 1. Kricker is silent wherein the cap plate and the second housing are attached by fusion.
Kim teaches an analogous water pump housing made of resin using fusion of melted resin in order to increase coupling force (c 6 ln 55-60).
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 manufacture the housing of Kricker of resin and join to the resin seal plate of Kricker by using the fusion method taught by Kim in order to use lower cost resin suitable for mass production in molds and to use the fusion to increase coupling force.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kricker in view of Porat in view of Leininger (CN 101010849, citations to machine translation).
Claim 10, Kricker in view of Porat makes obvious the motor pump of claim 1. Kricker is silent wherein the cap plate includes stainless steel.
Nevertheless, Kricker indicates that cap plate ( seal plate 36) be made of a non-magnetic material electrically inert material (c ln 8-10).
Leininger teaches an electric motor stator showing that the non-magnetic insulator plate may be made of stainless steel as a suitable insulating material (pg 6 and pg 7 of translation).
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 manufacture the non-magnetic insulator material of Kricker of stainless steel as an art recognized suitable material for the non-magnetic insulating material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikeda (US 2021/0388851) shows an analogous pump with an insulative cap over a circuit board.
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