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 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.
Claim(s) 15-21, 23-25, and 27-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krank et al. (US 2024/0339895 A1) in view of Mallette et al. (US 2017/0234483 A1). Krank discloses a fluid delivery system (fig. 1) for supplying fluid to at least one machine assembly, comprising:
Re claim 15, a first pump (32) and a second pump (22); b. a drive (par [0057]: common pump drive) for driving the first pump and/or the second pump; c. a housing (housing of 8) which comprises a reservoir (14) with a main sump (fig. 1: part of 14 to the left of 26) and a secondary sump (fig. 1: part of 14 to the right of 26) for storing the fluid; and e. wherein the first pump delivers fluid from the main sump to the machine assembly in a supply flow (34) and f. wherein the supply flow is divided downstream of the reservoir into at least a first supply sub-flow (fig. 1 shows the first supply sub-flow at the top) for supplying the machine assembly and a second supply sub-flow (fig. 1 shows the second supply sub-flow within the drive shaft), which is fluidically separated from the first supply sub-flow (fig. 1), for supplying the same machine assembly or another machine assembly, g. wherein the supply flow returns from the machine assembly to the housing in a first return sub-flow (first return sub-flow is above 14 and extending through 16 and into 14) and a second return sub-flow (second return sub-flow is to the left side of 4), h. wherein the second pump is arranged downstream of the machine assembly and delivers the fluid of the second return sub-flow situated within the housing and outside the reservoir into the main sump in a sub-flow (18) downstream of the machine assembly (fig. 1), i. wherein the second pump suctions the fluid of the second return sub-flow and does not suction the fluid of the first return sub-flow (fig. 1 shows the inlet of 18 is outside of 14), j. wherein the first return sub-flow and the sub-flow are intermixed in the main sump (the outlet of 18 is in the main tank, where the first return sub-flow is also received).
Re claim 16, wherein the first return sub-flow and the second return sub-flow are fluidically connected to the housing via a first return line (channel extending from 20.1 to the leftward 16 and into 14) and a second return line (channel extending from 20.1 to the rightward 16 (not indicated) and into 18), respectively, and the sub-flow suctions fluid from the second return line (fig. 1).
Re claim 17, wherein the fluid delivery system comprises a multi-circuit pump module (par [0022] describes a “two-stage lubricant pump”), and wherein the first pump and the second pump are part of the pump module (fig. 1 and par [0033] describes a common pump drive).
Re claim 18, wherein no filter module (the filter module taught by Mallette below is only associated with the return flow, not supply flow) or an auxiliary filter module (25) is embodied in the supply flow, upstream of where the supply flow is divided.
Re claim 19, wherein the fluid of the second supply sub-flow, before it flows back into the reservoir and is filtered by the filter module of the sub-flow.
Re claim 20, wherein the filter module is an oil filter (25) of a motor vehicle (Krank discloses a vehicle).
Re claim 21, wherein the housing comprises at least one return opening (opening at the rightward 16) which can be connected to the machine assembly (fig. 1), and the second return sub-flow aspirates the fluid on a side of the return opening which faces away from the machine assembly (fluid at the bottom of 5 is suctioned via 18).
Re claim 23, wherein the second supply sub flow flows back into the housing via the return opening downstream of the machine assembly (fig. 1 shows the flow path where oil if flowed back).
Re claim 24, wherein the fluid is circulated by the sub-flow in the housing (fig. 1).
Re claim 25, wherein the downstream end of the sub-flow emerges into the reservoir (fig. 1).
Re claim 28, wherein the fluid delivery system comprises a heat exchanger (heat exchanger shown at the downstream arrow of 34), and the heat exchanger is arranged in the supply flow (fig. 1).
Re claim 29, wherein the at least one machine assembly is an engine and/or transmission (1) of a motor vehicle (title).
Re claim 30, wherein the multi-circuit pump module is a dual circuit pump module (pump 22 and pump 32).
Re claim 31, wherein the fluid is circulated by the sub-flow in the housing and delivered into the reservoir from a location away from the reservoir (fig. 1 shows inlet of 18 is distal from 14).
Re claim 32, wherein the downstream end of the sub-flow emerges into the main sump of the reservoir (fig. 1).
Re claim 33, wherein the fluid situated within the housing and outside the reservoir is delivered into the main sump of the reservoir by the sub-flow (fluid delivered via 18).
Re claim 34, wherein the auxiliary filter module is provided and separates larger and/or fewer particles from the fluid than the filter module of the second return sub-flow (Examiner takes Official Notice that filter within the sump and at the pump inlet are known in the art as a strainer, which has larger pass-through holes compared to a typical filter 28 of Mallette).
Krank does not disclose:
Re claim 15, d. a filter module for filtering the fluid, and k. wherein the filter module is embodied in the sub-flow.
Re claim 20, wherein the filter module separates at least 20% of the particles larger than 6 μm and at least 65% of the particles larger than 14 μm.
Re claim 27, wherein the volume flow of the supply flow is larger than and at least twice as large as the volume flow of the sub-flow.
However, Mallette teaches a lubrication assembly (fig. 1) comprising:
Re claim 15, a filter module (28) for filtering the fluid, wherein the filter module is embodied in the sub-flow (fig. 1 shows the filter is in the return flow associated with pump 26).
Re claim 19, wherein the fluid of the second supply sub-flow, before it flows back into the reservoir and is filtered by the filter module of the sub-flow (fig. 1; the filter module is taught to line 18 of Krank).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a filter module, as taught by Mallette, to remove harmful particles and prevent it from entering the reservoir.
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed ranges to capture large particles and prevent it from circulating back into the sensitive machine components, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 27, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed flow rate ranges to ensure adequate oil reaches the machine components, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 34, Examiner takes Official Notice that strainers are known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ strainers to prevent large debris from reaching the pump component.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krank et al. (US 2024/0339895 A1) in view of Mallette et al. (US 2017/0234483 A1) and Okui (US Pat 4,915,070). Krank discloses the fluid delivery system (as cited above). Krank does not disclose:
Re claim 22, wherein the return opening comprises a screen on its side which faces the machine assembly.
However, Okui teaches a fluid delivery system (fig. 3):
Re claim 22, wherein the return opening comprises a screen (84) on its side which faces the machine assembly.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a screen, as taught by Okui, to prevent large debris from entering the reservoir and recirculated back into the system and the screen help with reducing splash.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Krank has an effective filing date of Nov 23, 2022 therefore does not constitute prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Krank claims priority to DE 102021133902.2, which has a filing date of Dec 20, 2021. Krank’s filing date is prior to the present application’s date of Mar 11, 2022.
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 MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654