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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 2021/0047801 hereinafter “Tanaka”) in view of Watanabe et al (US 2009/0196772 hereinafter “Watanabe”) and Adsett et al (US 6,226,582 hereinafter “Adsett”).
In regards to claim 1:
Tanaka teaches a pump (41) coupled to a tank (42), the pump comprising a pump cover (exterior) with an outlet that is in fluidic communication with a functions module, wherein the functions module includes a valve (25) configured to control a lifting and lowering function, a multi-way multi position valve (33) configured to control a steering function, and a valve (46) configured to limit pressure peaks due to steering impacts.
Tanaka does not teach the pump to be a gear pump and coupled to an electric motor, the pump having a plurality of outlets, and the valve to control a lifting and lowering function to be a solenoid.
Watanabe teaches a pump that is a gear pump (inner rotor 17 is a gear) having a plurality of outlets (24a and 25a) and coupled to an electric motor (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the pump of Tanaka to be a gear pump having a plurality of outlets and driven by an electric motor as taught by Watanabe in order to use a known alternative type of pump driven by a known alternative driving member to distribute a working fluid to a desired location.
Adsett teaches a solenoid valve (24) to control a lifting and lowering function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the lifting and lowering function of Tanaka to be controlled via a solenoid valve as taught by Adsett in order to control the valve electronically.
In regards to claim 5:
Tanaka as modified teaches the gear pump is arranged in an off-highway vehicle (Figure 1 shows a bulldozer and recites a wheel loader and a forklift in Paragraph [0002]).
In regards to claim 6:
Tanaka as modified teaches a shaft extends from the electric motor to the gear pump, and wherein the shaft is free of a shaft housing (Figure 5 of Watanabe shows a shaft 3A that extends into the pump rotor).
In regards to claim 7:
Tanaka as modified teaches the electric motor is mounted directly to a pump cover of the pump (Shown in Figure 5 of Watanabe).
In regards to claim 9:
Tanaka teaches an off-highway vehicle comprising a pump (41) coupled to a tank (42), the pump comprising a pump cover (exterior) with an outlet that is in fluidic communication with a functions module, wherein the functions module includes a valve (25) configured to control a lifting and lowering function, a multi-way multi position valve (33) configured to control a steering function, and a valve (46) configured to limit pressure peaks due to steering impacts.
Tanaka does not teach the pump to be a gear pump and coupled to an electric motor, the pump having a plurality of outlets, and the valve to control a lifting and lowering function to be a solenoid.
Watanabe teaches a pump that is a gear pump (inner rotor 17 is a gear) having a plurality of outlets (24a and 25a) and coupled to an electric motor (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the pump of Tanaka to be a gear pump having a plurality of outlets and driven by an electric motor as taught by Watanabe in order to use a known alternative type of pump driven by a known alternative driving member to distribute a working fluid to a desired location.
Adsett teaches a solenoid valve (24) to control a lifting and lowering function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the lifting and lowering function of Tanaka to be controlled via a solenoid valve as taught by Adsett in order to control the valve electronically.
In regards to claim 10:
Tanaka as modified teaches the gear pump comprises an inlet port coupled to an inlet line arranged in an interior of the tank (Figure 3 of Tanaka shows an inlet line in an interior of a tank 42 coupled to the inlet of the pump).
In regards to claim 12:
Tanaka as modified teaches the electric motor is mounted directly to a pump cover of the pump (Shown in Figure 5 of Watanabe).
In regards to claim 13:
Tanaka as modified teaches the gear pump is outside an interior of the tank (Shown in Figure 3 of Tanaka, the pump is outside of the tank 42).
In regards to claim 14:
Tanaka teaches the off-highway vehicle is a forklift (Paragraphs [0002] and [0127] of Tanaka).
In regards to claim 16:
Tanaka teaches an off-highway vehicle comprising a pump (41) coupled to a tank (42), the pump comprising a pump cover (exterior) with an outlet that is in fluidic communication with a functions module, wherein the functions module includes a valve (25) configured to control a lifting and lowering function, a multi-way multi position valve (33) configured to control a steering function, and a valve (46) configured to limit pressure peaks due to steering impacts.
Tanaka does not teach the pump coupled to an electric motor wherein a shaft extending from the electric motor to the pump is housed via only an electric motor housing and the pump cover, the pump having a plurality of outlets, and the valve to control a lifting and lowering function to be a solenoid.
Watanabe teaches a pump having a plurality of outlets (24a and 25a) and coupled to an electric motor (3), wherein the electric motor has a shaft (3B) extending from the electric motor to the pump and is housed via an electric motor housing and the pump cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the pump of Tanaka to have a plurality of outlets and driven by an electric motor as taught by Watanabe in order to have the pump driven by a known alternative driving member to distribute a working fluid to a desired location.
Adsett teaches a solenoid valve (24) to control a lifting and lowering function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the lifting and lowering function of Tanaka to be controlled via a solenoid valve as taught by Adsett in order to control the valve electronically.
Claims 2-4, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Watanabe and Adsett as applied to claims 1, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 4,835,968).
In regards to claim 2:
Tanaka does not teach an inlet line and a return line extending directly between the tank and the gear pump.
Yamaguchi teaches an inlet line and a return line extending directly between a tank (T) and pump (P2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Tanaka to have an inlet line and a return line extending directly between a tank and pump as taught by Yamaguchi in order to supply fluid from the tank to the pump and to have the fluid return to the tank.
In regards to claim 3:
Tanaka as modified teaches the return line comprising a filter (return filter “R/F” in Yamaguchi, shown in Figure 1).
In regards to claim 4:
Tanaka as modified does not specify the plurality of outlets to be positioned above the filter, however the rearrangement of parts is not inventive. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) the court upheld that the shifting of positions of a component that would not have modified the operation of the device is not inventive. In the instant case rearranging the filter to be above the filter does not change the operation of the filter and furthermore there is no relative dimensions in the structural language, such that having the filter below an outlet, rotating the pump would place the outlets on any side of a filter (90 degrees would have the filter on the left or right, 180 degrees would have the filter above).
In regards to claim 11:
Tanaka does not teach the gear pump comprising an outlet port coupled to a return line extending from the outlet port to a filter arranged in the interior of the tank.
Yamaguchi teaches a pump (P2) having an outlet port coupled to a return line extending from the outlet port to a filter (R/F) arranged in an interior of a tank (T).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the gear pump of the modified Tanaka reference to be coupled to a return line with a filter arranged in the interior of the tank in order to clean the fluid in the return line that is returning to the tank.
In regards to claim 15:
Tanaka does not teach a plurality of lines fluidly coupling the tank to the gear pump are housed by a pump cover of the gear pump.
Yamaguchi teaches a plurality of inlet lines (151 and 153) that are housed in a pump cover (150) and couple the pump to the fluid source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the pump of Tanaka to have a plurality of lines coupled to the pump as taught by Yamaguchi in order to receive fluid from the tank to a plurality of locations in the pump.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Watanabe and Adsett as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jordan Jr et al (US 2021/0062626 hereinafter “Jordan”).
In regards to claim 8:
Tanaka does not teach a fuel tank that is mounted directly to the pump cover of the pump.
Jordan teaches a fuel tank (618) mounted directly to a pump cover of a pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a fuel tank mounted directly to a pump cover in order to store fuel and secure and fasten the pump (Shown in Figure 6 and described in Paragraph [0076]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Watanabe and Adsett as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Liang et al (US 2021/0278042 hereinafter “Liang”).
In regards to claim 17:
Tanaka does not teach a tank directly mounted to the pump cover, and wherein lines fluidly coupling the tank to the pump.
Liang teaches a tank (54) directly mounted to a pump cover (56, the manifold being part of the pump 60 to attach the tank), and wherein lines fluidly couple the tank to the pump (through the manifold portion of the pump).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the tank of Tanaka to be directly mounted to the pump cover and fluidly couple the tank to the pump as taught by Liang in order to store the fluid that the pump utilizes and provide said fluid to the pump.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Watanabe and Adsett as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Yamaguchi and Miller et al (US 3,999,314 hereinafter “Miller”).
In regards to claim 18:
Tanaka teaches an inlet line between the tank and the pump.
Tanaka does not teach a return line directly extending from the tank and the pump and a filter in the return line.
Miller teaches a return line directly extending from a tank (154) and a pump (150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Tanaka to have a return line directly extending from the pump to the tank as taught by Miller in order to allow fluid to flow from the pump and return to the tank.
Yamaguchi teaches a filter (R/F) in a return line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Tanaka to have a filter in the return line as taught by Yamaguchi in order to clean the fluid prior to rejoining the tank.
In regards to claim 19:
Tanaka as modified does not specify the plurality of outlets to be positioned above the filter, however the rearrangement of parts is not inventive. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) the court upheld that the shifting of positions of a component that would not have modified the operation of the device is not inventive. In the instant case rearranging the filter to be above the filter does not change the operation of the filter and furthermore there is no relative dimensions in the structural language, such that having the filter below an outlet, rotating the pump would place the outlets on any side of a filter (90 degrees would have the filter on the left or right, 180 degrees would have the filter above).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Watanabe and Adsett as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Salter et al (US 2013/0216403 hereinafter “Salter”).
In regards to claim 20:
Tanaka does not teach a plurality of valves is arranged within the pump.
Salter teaches a plurality of valves (50) arranged within a pump (1) in order to regulate the flow of hydraulic fluid (Paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a plurality of valves arranged in the pump in order to regulate the flow of hydraulic fluid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection 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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747