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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on the 18293362 application filed 01/30/24
The Amendment filed 01/30/24 has been entered and fully considered
Claim(s) 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 are pending, the new claim(s) 9 ,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 is supported by the originally filed disclosure
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 9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 10,11,21 of copending Application No. 18293364 (US 2024/0337211; herein known as FIORINI364; reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the automotive electric liquid pump module as recited in the co-pending application claims clearly envisages the automotive electric liquid pump module of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DE 38 13 654 A1 (herein known as SIEGFRIED).
With regard to claim 9, SIEGFRIED sufficiently teaches an electric liquid pump module capable of pumping a coolant liquid in a coolant circuit of an automobile, the electric liquid pump module comprising, especially at abstract, claim 9, para 1,2; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
a first electrical flow pump unit comprising a flow pump "impeller" (wheel) which is directly driven by an electric motor, especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4
a passive deaerator unit 1 comprising a liquid inlet 2, especially at abstract, claim 9, para 1,2, fig 1
a liquid outlet 8, especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11 fig 1
a deaerator housing 10 which defines a first "bulge" (widened deceleration chamber), especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11 fig 1
a deaeration opening 4 which is arranged at a vertical top of the first widened deceleration chamber, especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11 fig 1
wherein, the deaerator housing is mechanically directly and stiffly connected to the electrical flow pump unit, especially at wherein, the deaerator housing is mechanically directly and stiffly connected to the electrical flow pump unit (considering that room 6 has the impeller), especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11 fig 1;
in an alternative, assuming SIEGFRIED does not specifically state wherein, the deaerator housing is mechanically directly and stiffly connected to the electrical flow pump unit
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to combine the deaerator housing and electrical flow pump unit of SIEGFRIED such that the deaerator housing is mechanically directly and stiffly connected to the electrical flow pump unit of SIEGFRIED since it has been held that making separate parts of a device integral involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (V-B))
With regard to claim 10, SIEGFRIED sufficiently teaches
wherein the passive deaerator unit is arranged fluidically upstream of the first electrical flow pump unit (as indicated by intake 2, prior to impeller room 6), especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11 fig 1
With regard to claim 11, SIEGFRIED sufficiently teaches
wherein, the deaerator housing comprises a deaerator housing main body 10, especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11,13 fig 1
the deaerator housing main body defines an axial liquid pump inlet opening 7 which is axially adjacent to the "impeller" (flow pump wheel), especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11,13 fig 1
With regard to claim 12, SIEGFRIED sufficiently teaches
wherein, the flow pump wheel is an impeller wheel, and, especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11,13 fig 1
the deaerator housing main body defines an outlet ring channel 6 which radially surrounds the flow pump wheel, especially at claim 9, para 1,2,4,11,13 fig 1
Claim(s) 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 38 13 654 A1 (herein known as SIEGFRIED)
With regard to claim 13, SIEGFRIED does not specifically teach a second electrical flow pump unit which is fluidically separated from the first electrical flow pump unit,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to duplicate the first electrical flow pump unit of SIEGFRIED with a second electrical flow pump unit which is fluidically separated from the first electrical flow pump unit, of SIEGFRIED since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B)
SIEGFRIED does not specifically teach wherein, the passive deaerator unit further comprises a second widened deceleration chamber which is substantially separated from the first widened deceleration chamber
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to duplicate the first widened deceleration chamber of SIEGFRIED such that the passive deaerator unit further comprises a second widened deceleration chamber which is substantially separated from the first widened deceleration chamber, and of SIEGFRIED since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B)
SIEGFRIED does not specifically teach the deaerator housing is further mechanically directly and stiffly connected to the second electrical flow pump unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to combine the deaerator housing and the second electrical flow pump unit of SIEGFRIED such that the deaerator housing is further mechanically directly and stiffly connected to the second electrical flow pump unit. of SIEGFRIED since it has been held that making separate parts of a device integral involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (V-B))
With regard to claim 16, SIEGFRIED of does not specifically teach wherein the deaeration opening is provided for both the first widened deceleration chamber and for the second widened deceleration chamber
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to omit a second deaeration opening of SIEGFRIED such that the deaeration opening is provided for both the first widened deceleration chamber and for the second widened deceleration chamber of SIEGFRIED since it has been held that an omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP 2144.04 PART II-A); and since it has been held that making separate parts of a device integral involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (V-B))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14,15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached on (571)272-0475. 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.
/ANTHONY SHUMATE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776