DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission filed on 30 March 2026. Claims 1 – 10 are pending and currently being examined.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (PG Pub US 20230077214 A1) in view of Chen (Chinese Patent CN 210484096 U provided by Applicant in the 6/25/2025 IDS, Machine Translation provided by examiner) and as evidenced by Horng (PG Pub US 20210301826 A1) and Racer (PG Pub US 20050013689 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Kim discloses a pump (200), comprising: a casing (11, 12, 13), comprising a base (12, 13) and a cover (11), wherein the cover covers the base so as to form a fluid chamber (which is part of passage “P” in Figure 6) together, the cover has an inlet channel (11a) and an outlet channel (11b), and the inlet channel (11a) and the outlet channel (11b) are in fluid communication with the fluid chamber (“P); a rotor assembly (20, 31, 32), comprising an impeller (20) and a magnetic component (31, 32), wherein the impeller (20) is rotatably disposed (paragraph [0111]) in the casing (11, 12, 13),
PNG
media_image1.png
676
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 2 of Kim
and the magnetic component (31, 32) is embedded into the impeller (the horizontal and vertical shaded regions form a recess which receives 31 and 32, therefore they are embedded – see annotated excerpt of figure 2 above); and a stator assembly (41b; Figure 8C and 44; Figure 5), comprising a plurality of magnetically conductive pillars (41b; paragraph [0142] states they are magnetic composites) and a plurality of coils (44), wherein the plurality of magnetically conductive pillars (41b) are mounted at one side of the base (inner surface of 13) located opposite to the fluid chamber (“P”) as shown in Figures 4 and 6, and the plurality of coils (44) are respectively disposed on (paragraph [0143]) the plurality of magnetically conductive pillars (41b) (paragraphs [0098]-[100],[0111],[0112],[0142],[0143]; Figures 1, 4, 5, 6, 8C).
PNG
media_image2.png
596
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Kim
As evidenced by the annotated figure above, Kim discloses a connection portion (shaded region) and an extension portion (above the shaded region), but Kim does not disclose that the extension portion of the inlet channel extends from the connection portion along a direction perpendicular to the central line of the fluid chamber.
However, Chen discloses a cover (19) having an inlet channel (10) and outlet channel (12), the inlet channel (10) having a connection portion (center of cover 19 depicted in Figure 1) and an extension portion (see where label 10 points to in Figures 1 and 2) connected to each other, the connection portion of the inlet channel is connected to a central portion of the fluid chamber (adjacent to the impeller 3) along a central line of the fluid chamber, and the extension portion of the inlet channel extends from the connection portion along a direction perpendicular to the central line of the fluid chamber (205), and in Figure 4 of Chen, if a plane tangent is drawn to an upper surface of the outlet channel (12), the plane tangent would intersect the inlet channel (10) (Translation: Page 2, Lines 40 – 42, Page 4, Lines 14 – 16; Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
612
1430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the inlet of Kim so that an extension portion of the inlet channel extends from the connection portion along a direction perpendicular to the central line of the fluid chamber, and a plane tangent to an upper surface of the outlet channel intersects the inlet channel as taught by Chen, by essentially substituting/replacing the cover (11) of Kim with the cover (19) of Chen, for the purpose of reducing axial height of the pump resulting in a slimmer pump by inputting and outputting the working fluid both in the lateral direction as evidenced by Horng in paragraph [0003], and because the results of substituting the cover (11) of Kim with the cover (19) of Chen are predictable as evidenced by Racer (paragraphs [0010] and [0011]) which discloses that either a radial inlet or an axial inlet can be selected for use.
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose the limitations of Claim 1, and Figure 2 of Kim discloses that the inlet channel (11a) is connected to a center of the fluid chamber, and the outlet channel (11b) is connected to a periphery of the fluid chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 2
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose the limitations of Claim 1, and the annotated excerpt of Figure 2 above of Kim discloses that the impeller (20) comprises a base portion (22, represented by the horizontal shaded region) and a plurality of blade portions (23, above the horizontal shaded region, best seen in Figure 3), the base portion (3, horizontal shaded region) has a first surface (top surface of horizontal shaded region above), a second surface (bottom surface of horizontal shaded region above) and a recess (defined by the interior of the L shape formed by the vertical shaded region and horizontal shaded region), the second surface faces away from the first surface (they are on opposite sides), the recess is located at the second surface, the plurality of blade portions (23) protrude from the first surface (Figure 3), and the magnetic component (31, 32) is disposed in the recess.
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose the limitations of Claim 1, and the annotated excerpt of Figure 2 above of Kim discloses that the magnetic component is disposed/embedded in the recess of the base portion (in order ]for the apparatus to operate as disclosed). “embedding” is a product-by-process limitation (In accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. In this case, the claim is to a pump which is a device/apparatus, and the method of forming the pump such as by embedding is not germane to the issue of patentability of the pump itself. Therefore the limitation “embedding” has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the pump, does not depend on its method of production such as embedding).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (PG Pub US 20230077214 A1) in view of Chen (Chinese Patent CN 210484096 U provided by Applicant in the 6/25/2025 IDS, Machine Translation provided by examiner) and as evidenced by Horng (PG Pub US 20210301826 A1) and Racer (PG Pub US 20050013689 A1) and further in view of Echle (PG Pub US 20240063668 A1).
In Re Claim 2, Kim and Chen disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Kim further discloses a circuit board (42 + 51/50; Figure 2; paragraph [0138]), wherein the circuit board (42 + 51/50) is mounted at one side of the base (12, 13) located opposite to the fluid chamber (“P”; Figure 6), but it does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of magnetically conductive pillars (41b) are welded to the circuit board (42 + 51/50).
However, Figure 3 and paragraph [0035] of Echle discloses a plurality of magnetic pillars (44), with a respective coil (24) disposed on each pillar, the pillar is welded to a yoke (26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to secure the plurality of magnetic conductive pillars of Kim / Chen to the circuit board by welding them to the yoke portion of the designated circuit board as taught by Echle because it is only a matter of substituting one fastening method (Kim) with another fastening method (Echle), therefore the results of substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B) – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007).
Claim(s) 6 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (PG Pub US 20230077214 A1) in view of Chen (Chinese Patent CN 210484096 U provided by Applicant in the 6/25/2025 IDS, Machine Translation provided by examiner) and as evidenced by Horng (PG Pub US 20210301826 A1) and Racer (PG Pub US 20050013689 A1) and further in view of Lin (PG Pub US 20210048011 A1).
In Re Claim 6, Kim and Chen disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but Kim does not disclose the shaft hole of the base and the shaft hole of the cover.
However, Figure 3 of Lin discloses that the rotor assembly (400) further comprises a shaft (410), each of the base (100, Figure 2) and the cover (500) has a shaft hole (inside 720 is the shaft hole of the base, inside 710 is the shaft hole of the cover), and two opposite ends of the shaft (412, Figure 2) are respectively inserted into the shaft hole of the base (in 720) and the shaft hole of the cover (in 710) (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the rotor of Kim / Chen such that two opposite ends of the shaft are respectively inserted into a shaft hole of the base and a shaft hole of the cover as taught by Lin because it provides two points of support for the shaft, thus reducing bending stresses caused by cantilever action.
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 6, and Lin further discloses a first abrasion-resistance washer (730) and a second abrasion-resistance washer (740), the first abrasion-resistance washer (730) is located between the impeller (420) and the base (100), and the second abrasion-resistance washer (740) is located between the impeller (420) and the cover (500)(paragraph [0017]; Figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
725
783
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 2 of Kim
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 6, and Figure 2 of Kim further discloses that the base (12, 13) has an annular protrusion (see shaded area in annotated figure above), and the annular protrusion is in contact with the cover (11) and surrounds the fluid chamber (“P”; Figure 6).
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 8, and Figure 2 of Kim further discloses a sealing ring (63; paragraph [0102]), wherein the base (12, 13) has an annular recess (12a), the annular recess (12a) is located farther away from the shaft hole (12c) of the base than the annular protrusion (in annotated figure above), and the sealing ring (63) is disposed in the annular recess (12a) and clamped between the base (portion 12) and the cover (portion 11d).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (PG Pub US 20230077214 A1) in view of Chen (Chinese Patent CN 210484096 U provided by Applicant in the 6/25/2025 IDS, Machine Translation provided by examiner) and as evidenced by Horng (PG Pub US 20210301826 A1) and Racer (PG Pub US 20050013689 A1) and further in view of Franano (PG Pub US 20130338559 A1).
PNG
media_image5.png
574
854
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 2
In Re Claim 10, Kim and Chen disclose all the limitations of Claim 4, and the examiner first contends that the annotated excerpt of Figure 2 above of Kim discloses that the magnetic component (31, 32) is integrally disposed in the recess and is surrounded by the base portion (22) as demonstrated by the shaded area in the annotated figure above. Alternatively, if it is not clear to Applicant that the magnetic component is integrally disposed in the recess and surrounded by the base portion (not admitted to):
However, Figure 3B of Franano discloses a magnetic component (150) that is integrally disposed in the recess in the base portion (140) and surrounded by the base portion as depicted (paragraph [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the base portion of Kim / Chen such that the magnetic component is integrally disposed in the recess and surrounded by the base portion as taught by Franano in order to seal/protect the magnet from contaminants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Pages 5 – 6 of Applicant’s Response that “However, Applicant notes that Kim clearly teaches that "[t]he pump housing 10 has an inlet 11a through which a fluid, such as cooling water, is introduced, and which is arranged at the center of one end thereof, and an outlet lb through which the introduced fluid is discharged, and which is extended and formed at one side of the other end thereof' (emphasis5 added; paragraph [0099]). Accordingly, Applicant submits that because Kim clearly teaches that the inlet 1la is arranged at the center of the pump housing 10 while the outlet 1lb is "extended and formed at one side of the other end thereof," modifying Kim, as suggested by the Examiner, to have the inlet 11 a at one side of the pump housing 10 would be contrary to Kim's inventive intent or having the inlet 11 a at the center of the pump housing 10, and is thus improper”.
PNG
media_image6.png
462
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 1 of Chen
Examiner’s Response: The inlet of Chen through which fluid is introduced into the pump chamber is also at the center of the housing (just like Kim), and Chen’s fluid is also discharged via an outlet which is extended and formed at one side thereof (just like Kim), as demonstrated in the annotated figure above. The conduit (10) of Chen is a passage in the wall of the pump cover which leads to the above annotated inlet into the pump chamber. Since Chen’s inlet is also at the center of the housing, it is not contrary to Kim’s intent of having the inlet at the center of the pump housing.
Applicant has argued on Page 6 of Applicant’s Response that “Applicant also notes that Kim teaches that "[w]hen a rotating magnetic field is generated from the plurality of teeth 41 of the stator 40, the rotor 30 arranged in the fluid flow passage P through the partition 12b rotates around the support shaft 60 together with the impeller 20. As a result, cooling water is introduced from the inlet 11a of the pump cover 11 according to the rotation of the impeller 43, and the introduced cooling water is discharged to the outlet 1lb along the fluid flow passage P" (emphasis added; paragraph [0198])”.
PNG
media_image7.png
462
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 1 of Chen
Examiner’s Response: The above annotated arrow showing fluid flow from the inlet to the outlet of Chen is similar to flow passage “P” shown in Figure 6 of Chen.
Applicant has argued on Page 6 of Applicant’s Response that “Applicant submits that if the inlet 11a was modified, as suggested by the Examiner, to extend from the side of the pump housing 10, then introducing cooling water from the inlet 11 a by the rotation of the rotor 30 around the support shaft 60 would be impeded and would decrease the flow of cooling water introduced from the inlet 11a. For this additional reason, Applicant submits that the modification of Kim suggested by the Examiner would render Kim inoperative for its intended purpose”.
Examiner’s Response: This is mere speculation by Applicant, there is no disclosure in either Kim or Chen which supports this position, because even in Chen the fluid arriving from inlet passageway 10 takes a sharp turn into the pump chamber (see Figure 5). Contrary to applicant’s arguments, despite Chen’s inlet passage extending from the side, Chen is still suitable for cooling applications as stated in the Translation on Page 1, Line 5: “Micro pumps are used in smaller products such as computer liquid cooling systems, notebook liquid cooling systems”, which implies it is still operative for its intended purpose of providing cooling since there cannot be any impediment or decrease in flow of cooling water. Applicant is also reminded that the entire cover of Kim is being substituted with the cover of Chen (it is not just the inlet passage that is being modified).
Applicant has argued on Page 6 of Applicant’s Response that “Applicant submits that, as evidenced by FIG. 6 of Kim, if Kim was modified, as suggested by the Examiner, by bending the inlet 11 a to be perpendicular to the central line of the fluid chamber, then the impeller 20 would no longer be "arranged in the fluid flow passage P" as specifically taught in Kim. Accordingly, Applicant submits that such a modification would render Kim inoperative for its intended purpose, and is thus improper”.
PNG
media_image8.png
667
804
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 1 of Chen
Examiner’s Response: Applicant is reminded once again that the entire cover of Kim is being substituted with the cover of Chen (it is not just the inlet passage that is being modified). The shaded grey area in the annotated figure above is the pump chamber of Chen where the impeller 3 is, therefore the impeller 3 of Chen is clearly still arranged in the flow passage. It should be noted that the purpose of Kim and Chen are to provide cooling.
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant’s Response that “Applicant further submits that if Kim was modified, as suggested by the Examiner, by bending the inlet 11 a to be perpendicular to the central line of the fluid chamber, then the rotor 30 and the impeller 20 would no longer be "arranged to face the stator in the fluid flow passage P." For this additional reason, Applicant submits that such a modification would render Kim inoperative for its intended purpose, and is thus improper”.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant is reminded once again that the entire cover of Kim is being substituted with the cover of Chen (it is not just the inlet passage that is being modified). Even in Chen, as shown in Figure 1, the impeller (3) is arranged to face the stator (7). It should be noted that the purpose of Kim and Chen are to provide cooling.
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant’s Response that “Applicant further submits that the person of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to bend the inlet 11 a to be on the side of the pump housing 10, or to remove a portion of the pump housing 10 to partially insert a conduit therein, at least because such a modification would necessitate additional machining not initially contemplated in Kim. Furthermore, the Examiner did not provide any rationale to justify the modification of Kim as suggested, other than in Applicant's own invention, which amounts to improper hindsight reasoning”.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant is reminded once again that the entire cover of Kim is being substituted with the cover of Chen (it is not just the inlet passage that is being modified). A mere substitution of one cover for another does not constitute substantial redesign or machining.
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant’s Response that “The Examiner, on page 6 of the Office Action, illustrates a "modification" that attempts to show the modification of FIG. 1 of Kim based on FIG. 4 of Chen. However, the Examiner did not indicate how such a modification could take place”.
Examiner’s Response: As clearly stated in the rejection, the entire cover of Kim is being substituted with the cover of Chen. The illustration highlights the cover portions of Kim and Chen, and the illustrated arrow shows that the cover of Kim is being substituted with the cover of Chen.
Applicant has argued on Page 8 of Applicant’s Response that “Applicant notes that in a previous Office Action, the Examiner suggested the following modification, reproduced below for the Examiner's convenience .. .. Applicant submits that even if the modification of Kim based on the teachings of Chen, as suggested by the Examiner, was proper, which is not admitted by Applicant, bending the inlet 11a, or providing an additional conduit, could only take place above the pump cover 11 of Kim, as shown in the Examiner's own above annotated drawings from a previous Office Action. In the above annotated figure, the conduit designated by an arrow is clearly above the outlet 1 lb. Accordingly, Kim modified as suggested would not teach that "a plane tangent to an upper surface of the outlet channel intersects the inlet channel".
Examiner’s Response: As clearly stated in the previous office action, the referenced illustration schematically showed the new position of the inlet passageway relative to its old position and does not include the walls of the passageway and the body of the cover that includes the passageway and was not intended to provide a complete view of the modified apparatus. In any case, applicant’s argument is moot because the entire cover of Kim is being substituted with the cover of Chen (it is not just the inlet passage that is being modified). Chen clearly discloses that the “bending” occurs inside the pump cover, above the pump chamber as shown in Figure 5, and there is no additional conduit. Furthermore Chen clearly discloses "a plane tangent to an upper surface of the outlet channel intersects the inlet channel". The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights