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 .
Application Status
This communication is in response to the Amendment and Request for Reconsideration filed 24 November 2025. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 7, 9 and 15 have been amended. Claims 17-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-24 are new.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 4, 5, 12 and 15 are hereby withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s remarks.
The replacement drawing sheets and specification amendments have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 depends from claims 9 and 10, drawn to a unified vehicle pump configured for providing gas to a compressor in an electric vehicle having first and second systems. Claim 10 further indicates that the systems are an air conditioning and air suspension systems which is simply an intended use in the context of the claimed pump. The claims however do not positively recite the systems. If they did, it would contradict the claim preamble being only to a pump, not an electric vehicle, which would be indefinite. New claim 24 recites that “the air suspension system does not include a storage tank” failing to further limit the claim because the air suspension system recited in claim 10 is not positively in the scope of the claims. In other words, since the air suspension system is only recited peripherally as intended use in the context of claim 10, the air suspension system and its constituents are not considered to be included in the scope of the claim other than as intended use. This then fails to further limit the subject matter of claims 9 and 10. Correction is required.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 14, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0123450).
Regarding claim 1, Han et al. discloses an electric vehicle (FIG.’s 1-5, Title, Abstract) comprising:
a battery 14 (FIG. 1, para. 0035, “power source 14 such as a battery”);
a first gas compressor 22 (para. 0030, second compressor unit 22) configured for compressing a first gas (para. 0063, “fluid may be refrigerant,” a gas in an A/C system when subject to compression) and providing the compressed first gas to a first system 70 (para. 0063, A/C system) of the electric vehicle, wherein the first gas compressor 22 includes a shaft 12 Id., and an electric motor 11 (para. 0031) that is electrically connected to the battery 14 to receive electrical power from the battery 14 and is configured to convert the received electrical power into rotational motion of the shaft 12 (para. 0035, battery powers motor via motor control 13);
a housing 31, 41, 51 (FIG. 1, para. 0031 & 0039, as shown, formed by integrated first 31, second 41 and motor housings 51 that collectively form the recited housing under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms) that contains the first gas compressor 22 and the electric motor 11, wherein the first gas compressor 22 is integrated with the electric motor 11 (since the motor drives the first compressor via shaft 54);
a second gas compressor 21 (para. 0030, first compressor unit 21) configured for compressing a second gas (para. 0062, air compressor) and providing the compressed second gas to a second system 60 (para. 0061, air spring suspension system, compressor unit 21 compressed air) of the electric vehicle; and
a coupling 34 (para. 0044, one-way clutch) configured for mechanically coupling power from the electric motor 11 to the second gas compressor 21 (Id., engaged or disengaged according to rotation direction of rotation shaft 12 driven by motor 11).
Re. claim 2, Han further discloses the first gas compressor 22 includes an air conditioning compressor (para. 0063, compressor unit 22 in A/C system 70), wherein the first gas is a refrigerant gas (para. 0063, “fluid may be refrigerant”) of an air conditioning system Id., and wherein the second gas compressor 21 includes an air compressor (para. 0062, compressor unit 21 in height adjustable suspension system 60 is an air compressor), and the second system 60 of the vehicle is an air suspension system Id., and the second gas compressor 21 is configured for providing the compressed second gas to the air suspension system 60 (as shown and described).
Re. claim 6, Han further discloses the coupling 34 includes a mechanical clutch (para. 0044, one-way clutch 34 is a mechanical clutch).
Re. claim 8, Han further discloses the coupling 34 includes a one-way roller clutch (para. 0044, one-way clutch 34 is a one-way roller clutch under broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) configured to engage and couple power from the electric motor 11 to the second gas compressor 21 when the shaft 12 is rotating in a first direction and to disengage and not couple power from the electric motor 11 to the second gas compressor 21 when the shaft 12 is rotating in a second direction opposite the first direction (para. 0045, as described).
Re. claim 9, Han discloses a unified vehicle pump (FIG.’s 1-5, Abstract) comprising:
a first gas compressor 22 (para. 0030, second compressor unit 22) configured for compressing a first gas (para. 0063, “fluid may be refrigerant,” a gas in an A/C system when subject to compression) and providing the compressed first gas to a first system 70 (para. 0063, A/C system) of an electric vehicle (Title), wherein the first gas compressor 22 includes a shaft 12 (para. 0030) and an electric motor 11 (para. 0031) that is electrically connected to a battery 14 (para. 0035, “power source 14 such as a battery”) of the electric vehicle to receive electrical power from the battery 14 and is configured to convert the received electrical power into rotational motion of the shaft 12 (para. 0035, battery powers motor via motor control 13);
a housing 31, 41, 51 (FIG. 1, para. 0031 & 0039, formed by integrated first 31, second 41 and motor housings 51 that collectively form the recited housing under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms) that contains the first gas compressor 22 and the electric motor 11, wherein the first gas compressor 22 is integrated with the electric motor 11 (since the motor drives the first compressor via shaft 54);
a second gas compressor 21 (para. 0030, first compressor unit 21) configured for compressing a second gas (para. 0062, air compressor) and providing the compressed second gas to a second system 60 (para. 0061, air suspension system) of the electric vehicle; and
a coupling 34 (para. 0044, one-way clutch) configured for mechanically coupling power from the electric motor 11 to the second gas compressor 21 (Id., engaged or disengaged according to rotation direction of rotation shaft 12 driven by motor 11).
Re. claim 10, refer to the rejection of claim 2, supra.
Re. claim 14, refer to the rejection of claim 6, supra.
Re. claim 16, refer to the rejection of claim 8, supra.
Re. claim 22, Han further discloses the electric motor 11, when coupled to the second gas compressor 21, is configured to drive the second gas compressor 21 with sufficient power to control a pressure of the air suspension system on a timescale less than five seconds to control a suspension dampening of the electric vehicle (an intended use/result limitation found to be within Han’s capabilities when using compressor to control air spring systems at least broadly, see para. 0062).
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.
Claims 3-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0123450) in view of Schnetzka et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0018764).
As to claims 3 and 11, Han is discussed above but is silent as to the electric motor includes an inverter configured to convert direct current power received from the battery to high voltage alternating current to drive the electric motor. To this point, Schnetzka teaches a compressor system having motor 114 including an inverter 206 for converting power from source 116 to a useable voltage and frequency for the motor 114 (FIG..’s 1 & 2, para.’s 0019-0022). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Han with an inverter for converting DC power to suitable variable AC power, i. e., frequency and voltage, to drive the motor and satisfy operational requirements as taught by Schnetzka (para.’s 0020 & 0023).
As to claims 4 and 12, once modified, Schnetzka teaches using an electric motor 114 of high-voltage (the term high-voltage is given lesser weight due to the aforesaid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue), variable-speed 112, alternating current motor 114 (para. 0020, VSD 112 is a variable speed drive providing AC power to motor 114).
As to claims 5 and 13, once modified, Schnetzka further teaches the motor is configured to operate at voltages between 200 Volts and 1000 Volts (para. 0019, 200V, 230V, 380V, 460B, or 600V).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0123450) in view of Baringa (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0140772).
As to claims 3 and 11, Han is discussed above but is silent as to the coupling includes a set of gears configured to engage and disengage when the shaft is not rotating, with the second compressor. In this regard, Baringa teaches a coupling having a set of gears 24, 34, 38 that are engageable when input shaft 32 is not rotating by action of linear actuator 46 and torque coupling portion 42 (FIG.’s 1-3, para.’s 0010-0012, inter alia). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the coupling of Han with the coupling of Baringa __a coupling known for predictable torque transmitting drive performance with expected results. The use of the coupling of Baringa in the combination of Han is considered a simple substitution of one known coupling for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).1
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0123450) in view of Shindo et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0011213).
As to claim 23, Han is discussed above but is silent as to air that enters the first gas compressor flows around the electric motor before entering the first gas compressor. In this regard, Shindo teaches an electric compressor having a suction inlet 123 that provides flow to the electric motor before entering the gas compression mechanism 111 (FIG. 3, para. 0028). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Han so that its first compressor has a suction inlet that allows flow around the motor before it enters the compression mechanism in order provide motor cooling with gas flowing through the motor housing as suggested by Shindo (para. 0036).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 21, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest an electric vehicle or pump recited in claims 1 or 9 including each recited limitation with the first gas compressor includes an air conditioning compressor, wherein the first gas is a refrigerant gas of an air conditioning system, and wherein the second gas compressor includes an air compressor, and the second system of the vehicle is an air suspension system, and the second gas compressor is configured for providing the compressed second gas to the air suspension system, wherein the air suspension system does not include an air storage tank.
Han air spring system requires an air storage tank__teaching away from the instant invention. There is no nexus in the available prior art that teaches such an air suspension system without an air storage tank. Elimination of the tank provides noted advantages.2
Note on Prior Art Rejections
A prior art rejection of claim 24 is not presented due to the aforesaid 35 U. S. C. 112(d) issues, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C.102/103 rejections over Han and the applied art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pp. 10-11 of the response, that “[a]mended claims 1 and 9 recite, among other things, "a housing that contains the first gas compressor and the electric motor, wherein the first gas compressor is integrated with the electric motor." Han does not appear to disclose this feature.” “In contrast, Han discloses that the electric motor 11 has a "motor housing 51" (see paragraph [0031]) and that the "first compressor unit 21 may include a first housing 31" (see paragraph [0039]) but that the "first housing 31 may adjoin the first surface 51a of the motor housing 51" (see paragraph [0040]).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to be interpreting the term housing as indicating integral one-piece construction. However, such an interpretation is unduly narrow and unfounded in this context. Han shows a multi-part housing containing and integrating the electric motor and gas compressors as set forth in the statement of the rejection above. Han’s housing elements 31, 41 and 51 form the constituents of the claimed housing within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. An integral one-piece housing is not claimed3. For these reasons, the arguments must fail.
Applicant has not presented any substantive arguments with regard to the rejections of the dependent claims over the art of record including the combinations of proposed modification, rationale, or motivations to make those combinations. Applicant simply asserts that they are allowable for the same reasons made for the independent claims.
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 KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
2 Elimination of the air storage tank reduces weight, cost, and total part count in the vehicle and also allows for the volume that otherwise would have been used for the air storage tank to be used for other purposes, such as, for example, a larger battery in the vehicle (spec. para. 0043).
3 An integral one-piece housing part is not evidently supported by the original written description of the instant invention.