Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/549,243

PUMP DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 06, 2023
Examiner
LEE, GEOFFREY S
Art Unit
3746
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aisin Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
205 granted / 333 resolved
-8.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
381
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 333 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-4 are pending. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehoff (US 2022/0252066) in view of Ono (CN 107731797, citations to machine translation). Regarding claim 1, Dehoff discloses a pump device comprising (gerotor pump, par 0001): an electric motor including a motor rotor (electric motor with rotor, par 0003) … , a stator (par 0008) disposed on a radially outer side of the motor rotor (par 0008) and including a stator coil (coils, par 0008), and a rotation shaft (shaft, par 0020) configured to rotate integrally with the motor rotor (par 0020); a pump (100, par 0014) including a pump rotor (gerotor 108, par 0015) connected to one axial side of the rotation shaft, and a pump housing (outer gerotor 112, par 0015) that houses the pump rotor; a motor housing (motor housing, par 0008) … with a side portion (inner sides of the housing, par 0008) to which the stator is internally fixed (stator is fixed to the housing, par 0008) and a bottom portion provided on the other axial side of the rotation shaft (fig 1, housing of motor 174 is the other side of shaft 106 from gerotor 108 has a far end at the end of the motor housing, which reasonably indicate a bottom portion of the overall housing), and that houses the motor rotor in an internal space surrounded by the side portion and the bottom portion (par 0008); Dehoff does not recite the motor including a permanent magnet… the motor housing having a bottomed tubular shape, a board on which a driver configured to drive the electric motor is mounted, and that is provided on an outer surface side of the bottom portion of the motor housing; and a busbar that electrically connects the driver and the stator coil, and that is provided while being visibly exposed to an outside at least in part when viewed from an outer side of the motor housing. PNG media_image1.png 630 893 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotations on Ono fig 2 Ono teaches an electric motor (abstract) with a rotor (102) a stator (10b) and a permanent magnet (105, pg 7, 3rd paragraph from bottom)… the motor housing having a bottomed tubular shape (cylindrical housing, pg 5, 3rd paragraph from bottom), a board on which a driver configured to drive the electric motor is mounted (control board 113 where the board is for the power converter circuit, pg 8, 5th-6th paragraph), and that is provided on an outer surface side of the bottom portion of the motor housing (fig 2 depicts board 110 at an end of the housing, at the axial end of the shaft); and a busbar (“113 s” pg 15, 4th para from bottom, pg 16, 4th – 6th para ) that electrically connects the driver and the stator coil (pg 15, 4th – 6th paragraph; power module 110 of controller connected to stator winding 101 via connectors 113), and that is provided while being visibly exposed to an outside at least in part when viewed from an outer side of the motor housing (113n is external to housing 111, fig 2 depicts “113 s” as external and connected to 113n; pg 12, 3rd from bottom; pg 14, 2nd para from bottom) where the conductors are outside in order to reduce magnetic inductance and reducing the size of the controller (pg 18 last paragraph, pg 19 first paragraph) thereby reducing noise (pg 17, 1st paragraph; pg 17, last paragraph; pg 18 2nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the generically described rotary electric motor with rotor and shaft of Dehoff, with the rotary electric motor of Ono for the expected result of providing rotational energy, while also including external conductors between the controller and stator of the motor thereby enabling one to reduce the mutual inductance of the bus bars and influence on the electric controller and thereby reducing noise and enabling better performance of the controller (Ono, pg 16-17). Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehoff in view of Ono in view of Yamada (US 5814909). PNG media_image2.png 460 630 media_image2.png Greyscale Yamada fig 3 Regarding claim 2, Dehoff in view of Ono teaches the pump device according to claim 1. The combination does not disclose wherein a surface area enlargement portion that enlarges a surface area is provided on an exposed part of the busbar. Yamada teaches an analogous rotating electric motor with an inverter power device (30) connected via conductor wires (22, c 4 ln 26-29) to coils (20) of a motor stator (16) where a heat radiating member (52) is mounted to the conductor (22) such that the heat radiating member (52) can improve the heat conductivity of the conductor (22, c 4 ln 24-29) where the heat radiating member (52) is in the form of fins (c 4 ln 37). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the busbars between the stator and inverter power device of the combination by adding the heat radiating member (52) taught by Yamada in order to increase the heat radiation and thereby prevent thermal damage and degradation (c 4 ln 30-35). Yamada is silent on the surface enlargement being provided on an exposed part of the busbar. Examiner notes that the “exposed part” of the busbar is the part that is “visibly exposed … when viewed from an outer side of the motor housing” in regards to claim 1. However, Yamada further teaches that the heat radiation member may be mounted on the outer wall of the motor casing (c 2 ln 13-15, 36-37, 55-56). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that heat radiation on the outer wall of the casing has the benefit of releasing heat outside of the casing and thereby more efficiently release heat from the system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when forming the prior art combination, to attach Yamada’s (heat radiating member, 52) to the exterior busbar of the combination as suggested by the Yamada’s heat radiating member installed to the exterior of the case (Yamada, heat radiating member outside the case, c 2 ln 55-56) for the expected result of transmitting heat via the conductors outside the motor casing (Yamada, c 2 ln 13-15, 36-37, 55-56) and thereby prevent thermal damage to the motor, especially by avoiding the heating atmosphere within the casing (Yamada, c 1 ln 56-60). Regarding Claim 3, Dehoff in view of Ono in view of Yamada teaches the pump device according to claim 2, wherein: the surface area enlargement portion is provided separately from the busbar (Yamada, heat radiating member 52 is separately manufactured and “mounted” to the conductor, c 4 ln 25-26, 43-46), the surface area enlargement portion is fixed (Yamada, “mounted” fits the plain meaning of fixed) to the exposed part of the busbar (obviousness of mounting to the exposed part was explained in claim 2). Regarding claim 4, Dehoff in view of Ono in view of Yamada teaches the pump device according to claim 2, wherein the surface area enlargement portion has a shape with at least one of fins projecting toward an outside from the busbar and projections and recesses (Yamada, fig 3, heat radiating member 52 is fins, c 4 ln 36-37). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kimmich (US 2013/0193785) includes a cooling plate 12 attached externally to the housing and directly attached to conducting wire. Isoda (US 2011/0101804) includes cooling fins on the conductor which is open to air passages from the outside via ports 2 (fig 7). Holmes (US 2009/0025952) includes cooling fins (72) mounted directly to the busbar (62). Jung (KR 20180010129) includes external busbars within an cooling apparatus. Inamura (CN 107453554) includes cooling fins between the stator and controller, outside of the motor housing but within housing 110. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800. 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. /GEOFFREY S LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595790
FLUID CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595787
Diaphragm Pump
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590585
CARTRIDGE STYLE FRONT COVER AND COUPLING CAVITY SLEEVE FOR AUTOMOTIVE SUPERCHARGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590578
FLUID END WITH TRANSITION SURFACE GEOMETRY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590593
PRESSURE MULTIPLIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+17.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 333 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month