DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “wherein, outside the first housing, the first drive shaft is not mounted such that the first drive shaft is exclusively mounted in the first housing” in claim 1 is interpreted to mean that the first drive shaft: is exclusively mounted (placed/fixed in place) in the first housing and is not mounted (placed/fixed in place) outside the first housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 103
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.
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, 4 – 10, 12, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ari et al. (WO 2007/026047 – herein after Ari) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ari et al. (WO 2007/026047 – herein after Ari) in view of Kameya et al. (US 2010/0028165 – herein after Kameya).
In reference to claim 1, Ari teaches a pump arrangement (fig. 1: air compressor; note “compressor” is considered to be a type of pump in broad sense) comprising a first housing (10) in which there is arranged in a rotatably mounted manner a first drive (8) for delivering a fluid, wherein a first drive shaft (9) of the first drive extends through a first side wall (through a right side wall) of the first housing (10) along an axial direction (horizontal direction), wherein, outside the first housing (10), a first rotor (2) of a first axial flux electric drive (1) is arranged on the first drive shaft (9) such that the first side wall (right side wall of 10) separates the first drive (8) from the first rotor (2), wherein the first axial flux electric drive has only one stator {stator in this case is 3+11+12+13+22: structure(s) that remains stationary (i.e. do not rotate) in the electric motor 1}; and wherein, outside the first housing (10), the first drive shaft (9):
is not mounted such that the first drive shaft is exclusively mounted in the first housing (condition A)
or
is mounted by way of a bearing, which exclusively accommodates forces acting in the axial direction, with no radial bearing accommodating forces acting in the radial direction being arranged outside the first housing for supporting the first drive shaft (condition B)
[condition A is met:
Ari states (see page 6, lines 3-6) “in which an aggregate set of the invention is presented both diagrammatically and partly as a cut-away drawing” and (see page 8, lines 13-15) “Furthermore, the sealed and uniform structure based on the common shaft reduces the need for bearings and the bearing noise”;
As evident from disclosed figure of Ari and above cited disclosure, the asserted first drive shaft “is not mounted outside the first housing” and “is exclusively mounted in the first housing”;
With respect to “is not mounted outside the first housing”: As evident from disclosed figure which shows “cut-away drawing” of motor 1; the “drive shaft” is only connected to motor rotor 2 with which it rotates just like in applicant’s invention; thus, it is clear from the figure that the drive shaft is not mounted outside the first housing.
With respect to “is exclusively mounted in the first housing”: The phrase “reduces the need for bearings and the bearing noise” in above cited disclosure of Ari means there may or may not be bearings present in the first housing. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a practical and operable pump design requires the asserted drive shaft to be mounted (placed/fixed in place) to some type of structure/element within the first housing 10].
In an event, if Ari remains silent on the pump arrangement, “wherein, outside the first housing, the first drive shaft is not mounted such that the first drive shaft is exclusively mounted in the first housing”, then:
Kameya teaches a pump arrangement comprising a first housing (5) in which there is arranged in a rotatably mounted manner a first drive (3) for delivering a fluid, wherein a first drive shaft (not labelled but present as evident from fig. 1) of the first drive extends through a first side wall (through a left side wall) of the first housing (5) along an axial direction (horizontal direction), wherein, outside the first housing (5), a first rotor (not labelled but present as evident from fig. 1) of an electric motor (9) is arranged on the first drive shaft such that the first side wall (left side wall of 5) separates the first drive from the first rotor, wherein the electric motor has only one stator (not labelled but present as evident from fig. 1) and wherein, outside the first housing, the first drive shaft is not mounted such that the first drive shaft is exclusively mounted in the first housing (via bearings 15, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mount Ari’s drive shaft exclusively in the first housing in the pump arrangement of Ari using bearings as taught by Kameya for the well-known purpose of rotatably supporting the shaft in the first housing.
In reference to claim 4, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein (see fig. 1) the first rotor (2) is arranged directly adjacent (“directly adjacent” = next to) to the first side wall (right side wall of 10) and between the first side wall and the stator (3+11+12+13+22) of the first axial flux electric drive (1) [“rotor 2” is “next to” the first side wall and “between” the first side wall and part 3 of the asserted stator].
In reference to claim 5, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the stator (3+11+12+13+22) is arranged (is partially arranged) directly adjacent (“directly adjacent” = next to) to the first side wall (right side wall of 10) and between the first side wall (right side wall of 10) and the first rotor (2) [ “portion of parts 11, 12” of the asserted stator is “next to” the first side wall and “between” the first side wall and the first rotor 2].
In reference to claim 6, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the stator (3+11+12+13+22) is arranged (is partially arranged) outside the first drive (8) in a radial direction [for instance, part 11 of the asserted stator is considered to be arranged outside the drive 8 in radial direction in view of fig. 1].
In reference to claim 7, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the stator (3+11+12+13+22) is arranged (is partially arranged) so as to overlap the first housing (10) along the axial direction (↔ direction in view of fig. 1) [for instance, part 11 of the asserted stator overlaps the first housing 10 in ↔ direction].
In reference to claim 8, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the stator (3+11+12+13+22) is arranged (is partially arranged) so as to overlap the first drive along the axial direction [the first drive 8 has a drive shaft 9 as discussed above in claim 1; since part 11 of the asserted stator overlaps drive shaft 9, it is considered that “portion” of the stator is arranged so as to partially overlap “shaft 9” (considered to be part of the drive) along ↔ direction in view of disclosed figure].
In reference to claim 9, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the stator (3+11+12+13+22) is inseparably connected to the first side wall (right side wall of 10) [there is no disclosure in Ari that states casing “12” and casing “10” being connected to one another in a “detachable” manner; thus, asserted stator is considered to be “permanently fixed” to the side wall of housing 10].
In reference to claim 10, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the first drive (8) is a first gearwheel (gear-like profile) rotor [see page 6, lines 13-15: 8 is a rotor with helical slotting; “rotor with helical slotting” is interpreted to meet the phrase “gearwheel rotor”].
In reference to claim 12, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the first axial flux electric drive (1) forms a heating element which is connected in a heat-conducting manner to the first side wall via a heat-conducting structure (6: cooling duct/22: fin tubes) {motor 1 or walls of motor 1 acts as a heat transfer element}.
In reference to claim 15, Ari teaches a use of the pump arrangement as claimed in claim 1, for delivering a water-urea solution in a motor vehicle [Ari teaches the pump arrangement for compressing air; “compressor” is considered a type of pump; both pumps and compressors are mechanical devices that move fluids from one place to another by increasing the pressure of the fluid; both devices act on a fluid, whether it’s a liquid (in this case, device is generally “pump”) or a gas (in this case, device is generally referred as “compressor”); one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pumps are generally used for moving fluids and could be adapted for different fluids and applications. There is no indication that using the pump arrangement of Ari for recited purpose of “for delivering a water-urea solution in a motor vehicle” would yield any unexpected or non-obvious results].
In reference to claim 16, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the stator (3+11+12+13+22) is arranged (is partially arranged) so as to overlap the first housing (10) along the axial direction (↔ direction in view of fig. 1) [for instance, part 11 of the asserted stator overlaps the first housing 10 in ↔ direction].
In reference to claim 18, Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the stator (3+11+12+13+22) interacts with magnets (not shown but inherently present) of the first rotor (2) to generate a torque for driving the first rotor and thus the first drive shaft (9) [for instance, component 3 of the asserted stator interacts with rotor 2 for generating torque in order to rotate shaft 9].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ari in view of Afshari, Thomas (US 2015/0247498 – herein after Afshari) OR Ari in view of Kameya and Afshari.
Ari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein the first axial flux electric drive (1) is arranged in a second housing (12) which is connected to the first housing (10).
Ari remains silent on the pump arrangement wherein the second housing is connectable “in a repeatably detachable manner” to the first housing.
However, Afshari teaches the pump arrangement, wherein a housing corresponding to motor (for instance, this housing being 1011/1080 of the motor; see fig. 4 and ¶41-¶42) is connectable in a repeatably detachable manner {see ¶41: “plates 1080, 1082 can be connected by a plurality of bolts (not shown)”} to a housing corresponding to pump (for instance, this housing being 1082/1020 of the pump; see fig. 4 and ¶41-¶42).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a generic connection between the second housing and the first housing in the pump arrangement of Ari for a “repeatably detachable” connection that involves use of bolts as taught by Afshari since such a detachable connection allows for ease of maintenance and assembly.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ari in view of Carl, JR. et al. (US 2004/0119374 – herein after Carl) OR Ari in view of Kameya and Carl.
Ari remains silent on the stator of the axial flux electric drive is made from soft magnetic composite material.
However, Carl teaches an axial flux motor wherein (see claim 14) the stator of the axial flux electric drive comprises materials which comprise soft magnetic composite.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the stator in the pump arrangement of Ari from soft magnetic composite as taught by Carl since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ari in view of Nuss et al. (DE102013102032A1 – herein after Nuss) OR Ari in view of Kameya and Nuss.
Ari teaches the pump arrangement (as evident from disclosed fig.) with a second side wall (left side wall of housing 10), opposite the first side wall (right side wall of housing 10).
Ari does not teach the pump arrangement “wherein a second axial flux electric drive is arranged outside the first housing and on a second side wall, opposite the first side wall, of the first housing, wherein the second axial flux electric drive is connected in a torque-transmitting manner either to the first drive shaft or to a second drive shaft of a second drive which is arranged in the first housing”, as in claim 13; and “wherein the second axial flux electric drive is connected in a torque-transmitting manner to the second drive shaft, and wherein the second drive is a second gearwheel rotor which is arranged so as to mesh with a first gearwheel rotor for delivering the fluid, wherein the first and second gearwheel rotors are arranged so as to be braced with respect to one another via the two axial flux electric drives”, as in claim 14.
However, Nuss teaches a pump arrangement, “wherein a second electric drive (M2, in fig. 2) is arranged outside the first housing (pump housing 12, in fig. 2) and on a second side wall (right side wall of pump housing 12 in fig. 2), opposite the first side wall (left side wall of pump housing 12 in fig. 2), of the first housing (12), wherein the second electric drive (M2 in fig. 2) is connected in a torque-transmitting manner either to the first drive shaft or to a second drive shaft (A1-2 or A2-1, see fig. 2 and ¶26 of translation) of a second drive (screw spindle corresponding to M2 within housing 12, see fig. 2 or labelled as “r2” in fig. A below) which is arranged in the first housing (12)”, and “wherein the second electric drive (M2, in fig. 2) is connected in a torque-transmitting manner to the second drive shaft (A1-2 or A2-1, see fig. 2), and wherein the second drive (labelled as “r2” in fig. A below) is a second gearwheel (gear-like profile) rotor which is arranged so as to mesh with a first gearwheel (gear-like profile) rotor (labelled as “r1” in fig. A below) for delivering the fluid, wherein the first and second gearwheel rotors are arranged so as to be braced with respect to one another via the two electric drives (M1, M2).
PNG
media_image1.png
826
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 2 of Nuss to show claim interpretation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a pump arrangement of Ari by providing it with second drive and corresponding second axial flux motor (similar to first axial motor of Ari) as taught by Nuss for making a type of screw pump that is particularly suitable for incompressible, even viscous media and for generating high pressures, as recognized by Nuss (see ¶3 of translation).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ari in view of Shi et al. (US 2015/0008779 – herein after Shi) OR Ari in view of Kameya and Shi.
Ari teaches the pump arrangement (as evident from disclosed fig.) with the stator having coils (stator 3 inherently has coils).
Ari does not teach the pump arrangement wherein the coils overlap the first housing along the axial direction.
However, Shi teaches an axial flux electric drive wherein coils (windings 221, see fig. 9) of a stator (20, see fig. 1) overlap a housing (40, see fig. 1) along an axial direction (↨ in view if fig. 1).
Shi’s housing (40) is considered to be equivalent to first housing in Ari. Both Ari and Shi teach an axial flux electrical machine. Shi highlights (see ¶6) advantages such as short axial size of its electrical machine which aligns with Ari’s goal (see page 2, lines 9-14) of creating a “compact” aggregate set. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first housing and the drive shaft in the pump arrangement of Ari for using stator and rotor components associated with the axial flux electrical drive as taught by Shi in order to have high-efficient energy-saving electrical machine that has advantages such as “small eddy current loss, excellent high-frequency characteristic, low temperature rise, high efficiency, high power density and high material utilization rate”, as recognized by Shi (see ¶6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, dated 08/01/2025, have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive (see discussion below). As a result, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 / 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Arguments (pages 6-12) with respect to Ari:
The Applicant’s citation of the withdrawal of rejections in the May 18, 2022 is noted, but this action does not preclude the Office from presenting a new anticipation rejection based on Ari, especially if a modified claim interpretation or a clearer articulation of the inherency argument is presented. The withdrawal of a previous rejection is not an admission that the prior art is irrelevant nor does it create an estoppel against a new rejection based on a revised or clarified legal theory. The current rejection is presented with a clarified analysis, particularly concerning the structural necessity and the legal nature of the claimed invention.
The Applicant claims the current approach is “very similar” to the earlier, withdrawn anticipation rejection. However, it is the Examiner’s duty to ensure all claims are properly examined against the prior art.
The Applicant’s core argument is that Ari fails to expressly or inherently disclose the drive shaft mounting location (condition A), claiming the Office relies improperly on speculation, vague text, and a diagrammatic figure. The text of Ari explicitly teaches a design that is “compact” and “reduces the need for bearings”. For a person of ordinary skill in the art, achieving these objectives necessarily dictates a structural arrangement that avoids additional, redundant, or complex components. The most logical and common way to achieve bearing reduction in an integrated motor-pump unit is to rely exclusively on the robust bearing required for the primary load (screw compressor) within the main casing (the first housing). The Applicant points to the Office’s concession that the phrase “reduces the need for bearings” means “there may or may not be bearings present in the first housing”. This concession only relates to the precise location or number of internal bearings. It does not alter the fundamental technical conclusion that the design excludes external radial support to achieve the claimed benefits of “reduces the need for bearings” and “sealed and uniform structure”. Any external support for the rotor would inherently be an additional bearing, which contradicts Ari’s stated goal.
The Applicant’s reliance on MPEP 2112(IV) and the Rijckaert is noted. While mere possibility is insufficient, the Examiner asserts the claimed structure is a necessary consequence of Ari’s teachings, meeting the standard for Ex parte Levy. While figures cannot typically be used to prove the absence of every conceivable structure, the Ari figure and text, read together, provide positive evidence of the design intent. The figure, even if “diagrammatic”, shows the general arrangement of the rotor and stator cantilevered from the housing with no visible external support structure. This visual representation supports the textual goal of bearing reduction. As stated in the last office action, it is clear from the figure that the drive shaft is not mounted outside the first housing (in the same sense as applicant intends in the instant application). IF Ari had external support, Ari’s core teaching that the integrated design “reduces the need for bearings” would be nonsensical or false. Since a POSITA must assume the prior art’s statements (compactness, bearing reduction) are true, the necessary structural implication is that the shaft’s radial forces are supported only within the first housing. This inherent structure anticipates the claim because it discloses the negation of condition A.
Arguments (pages 12-13) with respect to Ari combined with Kameya:
The Applicant argues that the difference in flux arrangements (axial vs. radial) renders the mounting solutions non-analogous and prevents combination.
Ari and Kameya are both squarely in the field of integrated, electric motor-driven screw compressors (a type of pump arrangement). They both address common problems of starting torque, oil presence, and efficiency in these systems. They are highly relevant prior art. The difference in flux arrangement is not a bar to combination. The concept taught by Kameya is a fundamental mechanical principle in rotating equipment. A POSITA would find it obvious to apply this common principle from an analogous integrated pump system (Kameya) to the Ari system to achieve the claimed mounting structure (condition A).
The Applicant argues that combining the references would create a radial flux device, thereby violating the axial flux limitation of claim 1. This is a mischaracterization of the obviousness rejection. The combination does not require replacing Ari’s axial flux motor with Kameya’s radial flux motor. The combination only requires provision of bearings as taught by Kameya into the main/pump housing (i.e. first housing) of Ari.
Arguments (page 13) with respect to Carl, Nuss and Shi: No arguments with respect to these references are presented. The presented argument refers to Ari (in view of dependency of these claims 11, 13-14, and 17 on claim 1). Ari’s arguments were addressed above.
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746