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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's previous election of Group I & Species 1 (Figure 1) is noted.
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 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.
Claim(s) 16 & 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindtveit USPN 4247267 in view of Homma US 2019/0234404.
Regarding Claim 16: Lindtveit USPN 4247267 discloses the limitations: a pump (40 | 61), the pump being configured to alternatively pump a working medium (e.g. oil or other liquid, Column 2 Line 41-43, Column 4 Line 5-14, Column 5 Line 37-41) to a first output port (43d, Figs 9-17, Column 4 Line 53-Column 5 Line 3 | 62b, Figs 18-22, Column 6 Line 34-40) and to a second output port (43f, Figs 9-17, Column 5 Line 16-36 | 62c, Figs 18-22, Column 6 Line 41-55);
a housing (1,41,42,43,44, Figs 9-17, Column 4 Line 5-50 | 1,62,63,64 , Figs 18-22, Column 5 Line 39-Column 6 Line 4) through which the first output port and the second output port are guided (see Figs 9-10 | see Figs 18-19) and which is arranged around the pump (see Figs 9-10 | see Figs 18-19), wherein the pump is arranged on a shaft (Column 3 Line 12-Column 4 Line 4 describes operation of the pump 3 depending upon the direction shaft 4 is rotated, given the similarities between both the pump 40 described in Figs 9-17, the pump 61 described in Figs 18-22, and the pump 3 described in Figs 1-8, the pump (40, Figs 9-17 | 61, Fig 18-22) would inherently be arranged on shaft 4 in the same manner as described in Figs 1-8). Also, while Lindtveit USPN 4247267 states that the driveshaft 4 of the pump is connected to a motor driven shaft (Column 2 Line 35-39), Lindtveit USPN 4247267 is silent regarding the limitations: a bearing (of the pump), an electric motor configured to drive the pump; a housing arranged around both the pump and the electric motor, wherein the electric motor and the pump are arranged on a common shaft, the common shaft being supported by the bearing of the pump. The prior art of Homma which is directed to an internal gear pump like the prior art of Lindtveit USPN 4247267, is noted.
However, Homma US 2019/0234404 does disclose the limitations:
a bearing (421, Fig 9 | 421, Fig 10), an electric motor (402,401,501, ¶0099-¶0101 | 4000,5000, ¶0125-¶0127) configured to drive the pump (configured to drive 351, ¶0108 | configured to drive 351, ¶0141; the pump = (351,421, Fig 9 | 351,421, Fig 10)); a housing (321,141,311,131, Fig 9 | 321,1401,311 Fig 10) arranged around both the pump and the electric motor (as seen in Fig 9 the articulated housing is arranged around the elements of both the pump and the motor as claimed | as seen in Fig 10 the articulated housing is arranged around the elements of both the pump and the motor as claimed), wherein the electric motor and the pump are arranged on a common shaft (41, Fig 9, ¶0108 | 41, Fig 10, ¶0141), the common shaft being supported by the bearing of the pump (as seen in Fig 9 | as seen in Fig 10)
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided an electric motor configured to drive the pump of Lindtveit, with a housing arranged around both the pump and the electric motor, the electric motor and the pump being arranged on a common shaft, the common shaft being supported by a bearing of the pump, in light of the teachings of Homma, as is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 20: Homma US 2019/0234404 does disclose the limitations: wherein the electric motor (401,402,501, Fig 9 | 4000,5000, Fig 10) has a motor winding (i.e. a coil of the coils provided in the cores of stator 501/5000 - ¶0103, ¶0041) which is surrounded by the working medium (since both Fig 9 & Fig 10 illustrate the oil flowing around the periphery of the stator (e.g. with flowpaths 3a,2b,3b,2a in Fig 9 & 3a,3b,2 in Fig 10) the motor winding/coil is inherently surrounded by the working medium as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
715
1633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 9 & 10 of Homma US 2019/0234404 (Attached Figure A)
Regarding Claim 21: Homma US 2019/0234404 does disclose the limitations: wherein the housing (141,311,321, Fig 9 | 1401,311,321, Fig 10) has a channel (see Annotated Figures 9 & 10 of Homma US 2019/0234404 (Attached Figure A) above) for guiding the working medium (i.e. oil, ¶0063-¶0064, ¶0110-¶0117, ¶0133-¶0140) from an inlet (Attached Figure A) along an inside wall of the housing (Attached Figure A, after flowing through the identified inlet, the oil flows along the identified annular inside wall (which is formed by a surface of the disk-shaped top wall 121a - ¶0105 in Fig 9) OR the identified circular inside wall (which is formed by an inner surface of the annular protrusion 6501a in Fig 10) in Attached Figure A) to the motor winding (Attached Figure A), and the channel (Attached Figure A) is formed to guide the working medium around the motor winding (as seen in Attached Figure A after flowing through the identified channel, the working medium/oil flows around (i.e. near/past) the illustrated motor winding as claimed).
Regarding Claim 22: Homma US 2019/0234404 does disclose the limitations: wherein on a side of the electric motor (in the combination of prior art Homma teaches a side of the electric motor = (lower side of assembly in Fig 9 generally indicated by element 652 | lower side of stator 5000 in Fig 10)), a ball bearing is provided (lower bearing member 422 is a ball bearing (Fig 9 - ¶0112-¶0113 | Fig 10 - ¶0135-¶0136)).
Regarding Claim 23: Homma US 2019/0234404 does disclose the limitations: wherein the electric motor is a disk motor (electric motor = 401,402,501, Fig 9, ¶0101).
Regarding Claim 24: Lindtveit USPN 4247267 does disclose the limitations: wherein the pump (40 | 61) is a bidirectional hydraulic pump (the pump (40 | 61) as described is able to rotate in both the clockwise and the counter clockwise direction, accordingly the pump is a bidirectional pump as claimed - Column 4 Line 53-Column 5 Line 36 | Column 6 Line 41-55).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindtveit USPN 4247267 in view of Homma US 2019/0234404 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Enjoji USPN 10003230.
Regarding Claim 18: Lindtveit USPN 4247267 as modified by Homma US 2019/0234404 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 16. Additionally, Homma US 2019/0234404 discloses the limitations: wherein the electric motor (401,402,501, Fig 9) has a rotor (401,402, ¶0101-¶0103, ¶0108) with a plurality of permanent magnets (i.e. plurality of magnets = plurality of upper magnets 441 & plurality of lower magnets 442 - ¶0101-¶0102). Lindtveit USPN 4247267 as modified by Homma US 2019/0234404 is silent regarding the limitations: mutually adjacent ones of the plurality of permanent magnets are spaced apart by slots for passage of fluid. The prior art of Enjoji which is directed to an axial gap motor (title, abstract) like Homma, is noted.
However Enjoji USPN 10003230 does disclose the limitations: an electric motor (2, Column 2 Line 61-65), wherein the electric motor has a rotor (rotor 8, Column 2 Line 61-Column 3 Line 3, Column 4 Line 37-55, Fig 1 & Figs 7-8) with a plurality of permanent magnets (rotor 8 has permanent magnets 50 as seen in Figs 7-8), and mutually adjacent ones of the plurality of permanent magnets (i.e. adjacent magnets 50 in the circumferential direction of the rotor in Fig 7) are spaced apart by slots 56 for passage of fluid (Column 4 Line 56-Column 5 Line 1 – when the rotor rotates, air (i.e. fluid) flows through grooves 56).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor (401,402) of Lindtveit USPN 4247267 as modified by Homma US 2019/0234404 with the slots 56 located between circumferentially adjacent magnets (Fig 7) of Enjoji USPN 10003230 in order to generate fluid flow through the slots 56 irrespective of the rotational direction of the rotor (Column 5 Line 23-32).
Further Regarding Claim 18: following the combination of prior art when the axial gap motor (401,402,501) of Homma rotates the working fluid/oil will flow through the slots (Enjoji - 56) located between circumferentially adjacent permeant magnets (Figure 7, Column 4 Line 44-64).
Regarding Claim 19: Enjoji USPN 10003230 does disclose the limitations: wherein the slots 56 are formed so as to convey the working medium on rotation of the rotor (Column 5 Line 23-32).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Page 6 ¶2-Page 10 ¶3 – where the traversals are directed to rejections based on the prior art of Homma US 2019/0234405) with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (e.g. Lindtveit USPN 4247267 in view of Homma US 2019/0234404 OR Lindtveit USPN 4247267 in view of Homma US 2019/0234404 and further in view of Enjoji USPN 10003230) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights