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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 26 & 27, filed 11/12/2025, have made: the objections to the Specification, the objections to the Drawings, and the rejections under §112(b) moot. The objections to the Specification, the objections to the Drawings, and the rejections under §112(b) of 08/12/2025 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s previous election without traverse of Species 1 (pumps are decoupled from one another) is noted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the: unit inlet of the second pump, unit outlet of the second pump, the low-pressure chamber of the second pump, the high-pressure chamber of the second pump, first axial end of the first housing, second axial end of the first housing, first axial end of the second housing, and second axial end of the second housing must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 41-43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 41 Line 1-6 currently states:
“wherein the first housing extends between a first axial end and a second axial end, wherein the second housing extends between a first axial end and a second axial end, wherein the second axial end of the first housing is positioned against the first axial end of the second housing such that the second housing is axially aligned with and coupled to the first housing, and wherein the unit inlet of the first pump is an opening through the first axial end of the first pump.”.
Should be changed to state:
--wherein the first housing extends between a first axial end and a second axial end of the first housing, wherein the second housing extends between a first axial end and a second axial end of the second housing, wherein the second axial end of the first housing is positioned against the first axial end of the second housing such that the second housing is axially aligned with and coupled to the first housing, and wherein the unit inlet of the first pump is an opening through the first axial end of the first housing of the first pump.--.
Claim 42 Line 1-2 currently states:
“wherein the unit outlet of the first pump is an opening through the first axial end of the first pump.”.
Should be changed to state:
--wherein the unit outlet of the first pump is an opening through the first axial end of the first housing of the first pump.--.
Claim 43 Line 1-3 currently states:
“wherein the unit inlet of the second pump is an opening through the first axial end of the second pump at the interface of the first axial end of the second pump and the second axial end of the first pump.”.
Should be changed to state:
--wherein the unit inlet of the second pump is an opening through the first axial end of the second housing of the second pump at the interface of the first axial end of the second pump and the second axial end of the first pump.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 45: Claim 45 Line 1-3 states: “wherein the low-pressure chamber of the first pump and the low-pressure chamber of the second pump are in series downstream of an inlet of the low-pressure chamber of the first pump.”. However it is noted that the SPEC filed on 04/17/2024 states:
PNG
media_image1.png
366
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus since the pumps 10A, 10B, 10C are not in series – it follows that the low-pressure chamber of the first pump is not in series with the low-pressure chamber of the second pump. And because of this the language of claim 45 which requires the low-pressure chamber of the first pump and the low-pressure chamber of the second pump are in series downstream of an inlet of the low-pressure chamber of the first pump is new matter.
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) 21-23, 25-31, 37-40, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruhl USPN 7073329 in view of Michie USPN 2871793.
PNG
media_image2.png
305
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 21: Bruhl USPN 7073329 discloses in Figure 1 the limitations: An electric and hydraulic machine (the machine is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
a first housing (Attached Figure B) defining a first pump chamber (i.e. chamber where pump 12a is located);
a first motor 14a; a first pump 12a comprising a first pumping element (i.e. driven pumping element of oil pump 12a which displaces oil and is rotated by drive 14a) positioned within the first pump chamber (the driven pumping element would inherently be within the first pumping chamber in order to displace the oil in the pumping chamber), the first pumping element movable by the first motor to displace fluid in the first pump chamber (Column 2 Line 35-65), the first pump chamber including a low-pressure chamber (oil pump 12a in Figure 1 inherently has a low-pressure chamber that is in communication with suction inlet 16a, Column 2 Line 35-56) and a high-pressure chamber (oil pump 12a in Figure 1 inherently has a high-pressure chamber that is in communication with discharge opening 18a, Column 2 Line 35-56), a unit inlet 16a defined by the first housing (Attached Figure B) and in communication with the low-pressure chamber (inlet 16a would inherently be in communication with the low-pressure chamber as it supplies oil to the low-pressure chamber), and a unit outlet 18a defined by the first housing (Attached Figure B) and in communication with the high-pressure chamber (outlet 18a would inherently be in communication with the high-pressure chamber as it delivers oil from the high-pressure chamber);
a second housing (Attached Figure B) defining a second pump chamber (i.e. chamber where pump 12b is located), the second housing axially aligned with and coupled to the first housing (Attached Figure B);
a second motor 14b; and a second pump 12b comprising a second pumping element (i.e. driven pumping element of oil pump 12b which displaces oil and is rotated by drive 14b) positioned within the second pump chamber (the driven pumping element would inherently be within the second pumping chamber in order to displace the oil in the pumping chamber), the second pumping element movable by the second motor to displace fluid in the second pump chamber (Column 2 Line 35-65), the second pump chamber including a low-pressure chamber (oil pump 12b in Figure 1 inherently has a low-pressure chamber that is in communication with suction inlet 16b, Column 2 Line 35-56) and a high-pressure chamber (oil pump 12b in Figure 1 inherently has a high-pressure chamber that is in communication with discharge opening 18b, Column 2 Line 35-56), an inlet 16b in communication with the low-pressure chamber of the second pump (inlet 16b would inherently be in communication with the low-pressure chamber of the second pump 12b as it supplies oil to the low-pressure chamber of the second pump), and an outlet 18b in communication with the high-pressure chamber of the second pump (outlet 18b would inherently be in communication with the high-pressure chamber of the second pump 12b as it delivers oil from the high-pressure chamber of the second pump 12b). Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 is silent regarding the limitations: a unit inlet interconnecting the low-pressure chamber of the first pump with the low-pressure chamber of the second pump, and a unit outlet interconnecting the high- pressure chamber of the first pump with the high-pressure chamber of the second pump.
PNG
media_image3.png
391
924
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated modified Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure C)
PNG
media_image4.png
475
922
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated modified Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure D)
However, Bruhl USPN 7073329 teaches in Figure 2: providing a common header (i.e. header between the outlets of pumps 12a,12b that supplies discharge opening 19) connected to the first pump 12a and the second pump 12b such that the pumps have a common discharge 19 (Fig 2, Column 3 Line 15-21). Additionally, a person of skill in the art would recognize that, by providing the common header on the discharge side of pumps 12a,12b would reduce the number of openings needed to be sealed between the fluid network supplied by pumps 12a,12b and the oil pumping system of Fig 2. Furthermore, those skilled in the art would know that if a common header were provided on the suction side of pumps 12a,12b such an arrangement would reduce the number of openings needed to be sealed between the oil sump supplying oil to the oil pumps 12a,12b and the oil pumping system of Fig 2. Accordingly, as seen in Attached Figure C and Attached Figure D, Figure 2 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 teaches the limitations: a unit inlet (i.e. indicated single low pressure chamber seen in Attached Figure C and Attached Figure D) interconnecting the low-pressure chamber of the first pump with the low-pressure chamber of the second pump (as seen in Attached Figure C and Attached Figure D the articulated unit inlet/single low-pressure chamber connects the suction side of the second pump with the suction side of the first pump via the common header on the suction side which forms the articulated unit inlet/single low-pressure chamber – thus this structure would inherently interconnect the low-pressure chambers of the first and second pumps as claimed), and a unit outlet (i.e. indicated single high pressure chamber seen in Attached Figure D) interconnecting the high-pressure chamber of the first pump with the high-pressure chamber of the second pump (as seen in Attached Figure D the articulated unit outlet/single high-pressure chamber connects the discharge side of the second pump with the discharge side of the first pump via the common header on the discharge side which forms the articulated unit outlet/single high-pressure chamber – thus this structure would inherently interconnect the high-pressure chambers of the first and second pumps as claimed).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the first housing, first suction inlet 16a, the second housing, and the second suction inlet 16b in Fig 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 so as to communicate with the oil sump using a common header with a single fluid connection similar to the one shown in Fig 2 of Bruhl USPN 7073329, in order to reduce the number of seals required between the sump and the oil pump system; and to configure the first housing, first discharge opening 18a, the second housing, and the second discharge opening 18b in Fig 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 so as to communicate with the fluid network supplied by pumps 12a,12b using a common header with a single fluid connection 19 as shown in Fig 2 of Bruhl USPN 7073329, in order to reduce the number of seals required between the fluid network supplied by pumps 12a,12b and the oil pumping system.
Bruhl USPN 7073329 is silent regarding the claimed structural arrangement for each of the first and second pumps, with the housing of each pump defining a motor chamber and a pump chamber where the pump chamber is positioned radially inward of the motor chamber such that the pump is nested within the motor; and the motor comprising a rotor and a stator, which are located within the motor chamber. The prior art of Michie USPN 2871793 which is directed to a motor driven pump like Bruhl USPN 7073329, is noted.
PNG
media_image5.png
541
974
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 2 & 3 of Michie USPN 2871793 (Attached Figure A)
However, Michie USPN 2871793 discloses the limitations: An electric and hydraulic machine comprising:
a housing (housing formed by elements 20,19,18,13,16,17,23, Column 2 Line 35-68, Figs 1-4) defining a motor chamber (i.e. chamber where the stator 11,12 and the rotor 30,31 are located in Fig 2) and a pump chamber (i.e. chamber inside rotor 30,31 where pump 28,29 is located in Fig 2);
a motor comprising a rotor and a stator (motor = stator 10, rotor 30, Column 2 Line 35-42, Column 3 Line 13-26) positioned within the motor chamber (Fig 2);
a pump (28,29, Column 3 Line 1-12, and Fig 3) comprising a first pumping element 29 positioned within the pump chamber(as seen from Figs 1-3), the pumping element movable by the motor to displace fluid in the pump chamber (Column 3 Line 8-50), the pump chamber including a low-pressure chamber (Attached Figure A) and a high-pressure chamber (Attached Figure A), a unit inlet defined by the housing (as seen in Attached Figure A element 16 of the housing defines the inlet) and in communication with the low-pressure chamber (Attached Figure A), and a unit outlet defined by the housing (as seen in Attached Figure A element 18 of the housing defines the outlet) and in communication with the high-pressure chamber (Attached Figure A), the pump chamber positioned radially inward of the motor chamber (as seen in Fig 2, the articulated pump chamber is located radially inward of the articulated motor chamber) such that the pump is nested within the motor (as understood From Figs 1-3).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the each of the first and second housings, the first pump, the first motor, the second pump, and the second motor of Bruhl USPN 7073329 so as to rotationally support both the pump and motor using a housing (20,19,18,13,16,17,23), a pump (28,29), and a motor (motor = stator 10, rotor 30) like that of Michie USPN 2871793, in light of the teachings of Michie USPN 2871793, in order to reduce the size of the motor pump unit (Column 1 Line 50-57).
Regarding Claim 22: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 does disclose the limitations: wherein the pump chamber of the first pump is positioned radially inward of the motor chamber of the first housing such that the first pump is nested within the first motor (in the combination of art the first pump (Bruhl – 12a | Michie - 28,29) the first pump chamber (Bruhl – chamber where pump 12a is located | Michie - chamber inside rotor 30,31 where pump 28,29 is located in Fig 2) would be located and nested within the first motor chamber (Michie - chamber where the stator 11,12 and the rotor 30,31 are located in Fig 2) as claimed), and wherein the pump chamber of the second pump is positioned radially inward of the motor chamber of the second housing such that the second pump is nested within the second motor (in the combination of art the second pump (Bruhl – 12b | Michie - 28,29) the second pump chamber (Bruhl – chamber where pump 12b is located | Michie - chamber inside rotor 30,31 where pump 28,29 is located in Fig 2 chamber inside rotor 30,31 where pump 28,29 is located in Fig 2) would be located and nested within the second motor chamber (Michie - chamber where the stator 11,12 and the rotor 30,31 are located in Fig 2) as claimed).
Regarding Claim 23: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 does disclose the limitations: wherein the first motor is identical to the second motor and the first pump is identical to the second pump (in the combination of prior art the first and second motors are identical since they both use the motor of Michie; and the first and second pumps are identical since they both use the pump of Michie).
Regarding Claim 25: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 does disclose the limitations: wherein the first pump is controllable via the first motor and the second pump is controllable via the second motor (Bruhl teaches at Column 1 Line 50-66 that the drives/motor for the two oil pumps 12a,12b can be operated independently of one another; according in the combination of art the first pump (Bruhl – 12a | Michie - 28,29) would be controlled by the first motor (Bruhl – 14a | Michie – 10,30) and the second pump (Bruhl – 12b | Michie - 28,29) would be controllable by the second motor (Bruhl – 14b | Michie – 10,30) as claimed).
Regarding Claim 26: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein the unit inlet of the first pump is axially aligned with the unit inlet of the second pump and the unit outlet of the first pump is axially aligned with the unit outlet of the second pump”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the unit inlet of the first pump to be axially aligned with the unit inlet of the second pump, and design the unit outlet of the first pump to be axially aligned with the unit outlet of the second pump--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the unit inlet of the first pump being axially aligned with the unit inlet of the second pump and the unit outlet of the first pump being axially aligned with the unit outlet of the second pump versus the design taught by Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the unit inlet of the first pump is axially aligned with the unit inlet of the second pump and the unit outlet of the first pump is axially aligned with the unit outlet of the second pump and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, since this feature is not described in the SPEC, it appears that this feature is merely how one would arrange the ports so that fluid could flow through the pump as desired (e.g. like the arrangement of the fluid inlet ports/single low pressure chamber (Attached Figure D) and the fluid outlet ports/single high pressure chamber (Attached Figure D) taught by Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793). Thus, when the unit inlet of the first pump is designed to be axially aligned with the unit inlet of the second pump and the unit outlet of the first pump is designed to be axially aligned with the unit outlet of the second pump the fluid inlet ports/single low pressure chamber (Attached Figure D) and the fluid outlet ports/single high pressure chamber (Attached Figure D) of Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 will also meet the functional limitation of allowing fluid to flow through the pump as desired.
Regarding Claim 27: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein the low-pressure chamber of the first pump is axially aligned with from the low-pressure chamber of the second pump, and wherein the high-pressure chamber of the first pump is axially aligned with from the high-pressure chamber of the second pump”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the low-pressure chamber of the first pump being axially aligned with from the low-pressure chamber of the second pump, and the high-pressure chamber of the first pump being axially aligned with from the high-pressure chamber of the second pump--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the low-pressure chamber of the first pump being axially aligned with from the low-pressure chamber of the second pump, and wherein the high-pressure chamber of the first pump being axially aligned with from the high-pressure chamber of the second pump versus the design taught by Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the low-pressure chamber of the first pump is axially aligned with from the low-pressure chamber of the second pump, and wherein the high-pressure chamber of the first pump is axially aligned with from the high-pressure chamber of the second pump and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, since this feature is not described in the SPEC, it appears that this feature is merely how one would arrange the low-pressure chambers and the high pressure chambers of the first and second pumps in order to allow the fluid to flow through the pumps as desired (e.g. like the low pressure chambers and the high pressure chambers (Attached Figure A) taught by Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793). Thus, when the low-pressure chamber of the first pump is designed to be axially aligned with from the low-pressure chamber of the second pump, and the high-pressure chamber of the first pump is designed to be axially aligned with from the high-pressure chamber of the second pump – the low pressure chambers and the high pressure chambers (Attached Figure A) of taught by Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 will also meet the functional limitation of allowing the fluid to flow through the pumps as desired.
Regarding Claim 28 & 29: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 does disclose the limitations: wherein the electric and hydraulic machine is operable in (i.e. capable of being operated in) a first mode in which the first motor actuates the first pump and the second motor is deactivated (see explanation below), a third mode in which the first motor is deactivated, and the second motor actuates the second pump (see explanation below), and a second mode in (i.e. capable of being operated in) which the first motor actuates the first pump and the second motor actuates the second pump (as explained above in the rejection of claim 25 in the combination of prior art the electric motor of the first pump is able to be operated independently of the electric motor of the second pump; accordingly in the combination of prior art since the two pumps can be operated independently (i.e. the claimed first and third mode), the prior art combination would be capable of being operated in the first and third modes as claimed, since they require only one of the motors being operated at a time, and would also be capable of being operated at the same time (i.e. the claimed second mode)).
Regarding Claim 30: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 does disclose the limitations: wherein the first pumping element includes a first gear arrangement (in the combination of prior art the first gear 29 of Michie is part of a first gear arrangement 29,30 of Michie) operable to displace fluid from the low-pressure chamber of the first pump (in the combination of prior art the gear arrangement of Michie would displace the oil from the low-pressure chamber as claimed) and wherein the second pumping element includes a second gear arrangement (in the combination of prior art the second gear 29 of Michie is part of a second gear arrangement 29,30 of Michie) operable to displace fluid from the low-pressure chamber of the second pump (in the combination of prior art the gear arrangement of Michie would displace the oil from the low-pressure chamber as claimed).
Regarding Claim 31: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 does disclose the limitations: wherein the first gear arrangement is operable regardless of operation of the second gear arrangement (as explained above in the rejection of claim 25 the first and second pumps are able to be operated independently of each other; accordingly in the combination of prior art the first pump/gear arrangement would be capable of operating (i.e. operable) regardless of the operation of the second pump/gear arrangement as claimed).
PNG
media_image2.png
305
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 37: Bruhl USPN 7073329 discloses in Figure 1 the limitations: An electric and hydraulic machine (the machine is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
a first pump-motor arrangement (the first pump-motor arrangement is defined by the sum of its parts and includes the claimed first pump and first motor); a first housing (see Annotated Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure B) above) including a first pump 12a and a first motor 14a, the first pump 12a comprising a low-pressure chamber (oil pump 12a in Figure 1 inherently has a low-pressure chamber that is in communication with suction inlet 16a, Column 2 Line 35-56) and a high-pressure chamber (oil pump 12a in Figure 1 inherently has a high-pressure chamber that is in communication with discharge opening 18a, Column 2 Line 35-56); and
a second pump-motor arrangement (the second pump-motor arrangement is defined by the sum of its parts and includes the claimed second pump and second motor); a second housing (Attached Figure B) including a second pump 12b and a second motor 14b, the second pump 12b comprising a low-pressure chamber (oil pump 12b in Figure 1 inherently has a low-pressure chamber that is in communication with suction inlet 16b, Column 2 Line 35-56) and a high-pressure chamber (oil pump 12b in Figure 1 inherently has a high-pressure chamber that is in communication with discharge opening 18b, Column 2 Line 35-56),
wherein the first housing is coupled to the second housing (Attached Figure B). Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the low-pressure chamber of the first pump and the low-pressure chamber of the second pump collectively form a single low-pressure chamber.
However, Bruhl USPN 7073329 teaches in Figure 2: providing a common header (i.e. header between the outlets of pumps 12a,12b that supplies discharge opening 19) connected to the first pump 12a and the second pump 12b such that the pumps have a common discharge (Fig 2, Column 3 Line 15-21). Additionally, a person of skill in the art would recognize that, by providing the common header on the discharge side of pumps 12a,12b would reduce the number of openings needed to be sealed between the fluid network supplied by pumps 12a,12b and the oil pumping system of Fig 2. Furthermore, those skilled in the art would know that if a common header were provided on the suction side of pumps 12a,12b such an arrangement would reduce the number of openings needed to be sealed between the oil sump supplying oil to the oil pumps 12a,12b and the oil pumping system of Fig 2.
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the first housing, first suction inlet 16a, the second housing, and the second suction inlet 16b in Fig 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 so as to communicate with the oil sump using a common header with a single fluid connection similar to the one shown in Fig 2 of Bruhl USPN 7073329, in order to reduce the number of seals required between the sump and the oil pump system.
PNG
media_image3.png
391
924
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated modified Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure C)
Additionally, following the modification of Bruhl USPN 7073329 described above the prior art would have the structure shown in Annotated modified Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure C) above, and would teach the limitations: wherein the low-pressure chamber of the first pump and the low-pressure chamber of the second pump collectively form a single low-pressure chamber (Attached Figure C; since the low pressure chamber of the first pump 12a and the low pressure chamber of the second pump 12b would each be in fluid communication with the identified single low pressure chamber in Attached Figure C, the prior art of Bruhl makes obvious the language in question).
Bruhl USPN 7073329 is silent regarding the limitations: the pump nested within the motor. The prior art of Michie USPN 2871793 which is directed to a motor driven pump like Bruhl USPN 7073329, is noted.
PNG
media_image5.png
541
974
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 2 & 3 of Michie USPN 2871793 (Attached Figure A)
However, Michie USPN 2871793 does disclose the limitations: a pump-motor arrangement (the pump motor arrangement is shown in Figs 1-3 and is defined by the sum of its parts) located within a housing (located within housing formed by elements 20,19,18,13,16,17,23, Column 2 Line 35-68, Figs 1-4) and including a pump (28,29, Column 3 Line 1-12, and Fig 3) nested within a motor (motor = stator 10, rotor 30, Column 2 Line 35-42, Column 3 Line 13-26; as seen in Figs 1-2 and Column 1 Line 51-57 – the pump 28,29 is nested within the motor 10,30 as claimed), the pump comprising a low-pressure chamber (see Annotated Figures 2 & 3 of Michie USPN 2871793 (Attached Figure A) above) and a high-pressure chamber (Attached Figure A).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the each of the first and second housings, the first pump, the first motor, the second pump and the second motor of Bruhl USPN 7073329 so as to rotationally support both the pump and motor using a housing (20,19,18,13,16,17,23), a pump (28,29), and a motor (motor = stator 10, rotor 30) like that of Michie USPN 2871793, in light of the teachings of Michie USPN 2871793, in order to reduce the size of the motor pump unit (Column 1 Line 50-57).
PNG
media_image4.png
475
922
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated modified Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure D)
Regarding Claim 38: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 37. Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure C) does not disclose the limitations: wherein the high-pressure chamber of the first pump and the high-pressure chamber of the second pump collectively form a single high-pressure chamber. However, Bruhl USPN 7073329 teaches in Figure 2: providing a common header (i.e. header between the outlets of pumps 12a,12b that supplies discharge opening 19) connected to the first pump 12a and the second pump 12b such that the pumps have a common discharge 19 (Fig 2, Column 3 Line 15-21). Thus Bruhl USPN 7073329 teaches in Figure 2 the limitations: wherein the high-pressure chamber of the first pump (i.e. the high-pressure chamber of pump 12a that is in communication with discharge opening 18a – see Fig 1 & Fig 2) and the high-pressure chamber of the second pump (i.e. the high-pressure chamber of pump 12b that is in communication with discharge opening 18b – see Fig 1 & Fig 2) collectively form a single high-pressure chamber (the common header illustrated in Fig 2 which has single fluid connection 19 would create a single high pressure chamber in the combination as it would communicate with both discharge openings, additionally see Annotated modified Figure 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 (Attached Figure D) above).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the first housing, the first discharge opening 18a, the second housing, and the second discharge opening 18b in Fig 1 of Bruhl USPN 7073329 so as to communicate with the fluid network supplied by pumps 12a,12b using a common header with a single fluid connection 19 as shown in Fig 2 of Bruhl USPN 7073329, in order to reduce the number of seals required between the fluid network supplied by pumps 12a,12b and the oil pumping system.
Regarding Claim 39: Bruhl USPN 7073329 does disclose the limitations: wherein an outlet of the high-pressure chamber of the second pump interconnects the high-pressure chamber of the first pump with the high-pressure chamber of the second pump (as explained in the rejection of claim 38, with the modification illustrated in Attached Figure D outlet 18b from the high-pressure chamber of the second pump 12b would interconnect via the single high-pressure chamber to the high pressure chamber of the first pump 12a as claimed).
Regarding Claim 40: Bruhl USPN 7073329 does disclose the limitations: wherein an outlet of the high-pressure chamber of the first pump (i.e. outlet 18a in Attached Figure D) is configured to receive (i.e. capable of receiving) a displaced working fluid from both of the first pump and the second pump (in the modification illustrated in Attached Figure D, since both pumps 12a,12b provide fluid to the same opening 19, after both pumps have been operating and then shut off it would be possible for fluid displaced by the second pump 12b to flow back into the first pump 12a; and it would also be possible for fluid displaced by the first pump 12a to flow back into the first pump 12a; and in both of these cases, this backflow would occur via the first outlet 18a).
Regarding Claim 44: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the first housing is separable from the second housing”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first housing and the second housing separate components, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruhl USPN 7073329 in view of Michie USPN 2871793 as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Kopp US 2015/0292503.
Regarding Claim 24: Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 23. Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 is silent regarding the limitations: further comprising a cover positioned on an axial end of the second housing such that the second housing is positioned axially between the first housing and the cover.
PNG
media_image6.png
594
890
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 of Kopp US 2015/0292503 (Attached Figure E)
However Kopp US 2015/0292503 does disclose the limitations: a cover (see Annotated Figure 5 of Kopp US 2015/0292503 (Attached Figure E) above) positioned on an axial end of the second housing (Attached Figure E) such that the second housing (Attached Figure E) is positioned axially between the first housing (Attached Figure E) and the cover (Attached Figure E).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the first housing (Bruhl – Attached Figure B | Michie – housing formed by elements 20,19,18,13,16,17,23) and the second housing of (Bruhl – Attached Figure B | Michie – housing formed by elements 20,19,18,13,16,17,23) of Bruhl USPN 7073329 as modified by Michie USPN 2871793 so as to have stackable structure using repeating housing structure for the first and second housings and a cover plate, in light of the teachings of Kopp US 2015/0292503 (Figure 5), in order to make it easier to stack the first and second housings on top of one another.
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-43 are 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.
Regarding Claim 41:The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 41 including “wherein the first housing extends between a first axial end and a second axial end, wherein the second housing extends between a first axial end and a second axial end, wherein the second axial end of the first housing is positioned against the first axial end of the second housing such that the second housing is axially aligned with and coupled to the first housing, and wherein the unit inlet of the first pump is an opening through the first axial end of the first pump” in combination with all of the limitations of independent claim 41.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the available prior art in the claimed manner is neither contemplated nor foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention. Accordingly, claims 42-43 are allowable based on their dependency on Allowable claim 41.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7 ¶3-Page 9 ¶3: Applicant traverses the §103 rejection of claim 21 based on a combination of Bruhl in view of Michie.
In response to Applicants argument (Page 7 ¶4-Page 8 Line 2) that the prior art of Bruhl does not teach a unit inlet interconnecting the low-pressure chamber of the first pump with the low-pressure chamber of the second pump – the examiner notes that Claim 21 is claiming two pumps connected in parallel. When two pumps are connected in parallel a first header connects the suction of both pumps to a common inlet and a second header connects the discharge of both pumps to a common outlet. As it relates to the current application, the unit inlet corresponds to the first header, and the language interconnecting the low-pressure chamber of the first pump with the low-pressure chamber of the second pump corresponds to the function performed by the unit inlet/first header. Furthermore, claim 21 is directed to the arrangement of pumps illustrated in Fig 9 of the application, and ¶0045 of the SPEC states that the pumps are in a parallel arrangement. Since the teachings of Bruhl teach a two pumps in parallel which is what is being claimed (given the disclosure of ¶0045 of Applicants SPEC which describes Fig 9 of the application) and the common header on the low pressure side performs the claimed function of the unit inlet limitation being argued, it follows that the prior art of Bruhl as explained in the Office Action, teaches the unit inlet claim language being argued.
In response to Applicants argument (Page 8 ¶1) that the modification illustrated in Attached Figure D is contrary to the teachings of Bruh – the examiner disagrees. Fig 1 of Bruhl teaches two pumps adjacent to each other which are each used to supply oil in a motor vehicle (Column 2 Line 35-38, Line 39-65). Just because it is stated (Column 2 Line 54-56) that each pump has its own suction inlet, does not mean that the pumps cannot be connected in parallel. Applicants focus on the Fig 2 embodiment which has two pump 12a,12b as a pressure stage and one pump 12c as a suction stage, does not demonstrate that the pumps in the system of Fig 1 cannot be connected in parallel. Thus Applicants argument is not convincing.
In response to Applicants argument (Page 8 ¶2) that the modification finds no support within the prior art, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation comes from the knowledge of those in the art, as such an arrangement would reduce the number of seals required between the sump and the oil pump system. Thus Applicants argument is not convincing.
In response to Applicants argument (Page 8 ¶3) that the combination would lose the ability to provide oil to the two pumps at two different locations as disclosed at Column 3 Line 18-20 of Bruhl – the examiner notes that this is a requirement of the Fig 2 embodiment, however there is no such requirement in the Figure 1 embodiment. Thus Applicants argument is not convincing.
In response to Applicants argument (Page 8 ¶4) that the combination is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, the examiner notes that Applicant has not provided any evidence that demonstrates that the combination is based upon the disclosure of the instant application. Because this assertion lacks support in the record, the examiner gives the assertion little weight. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Thus Applicants argument is not convincing.
In response to Applicants argument (Page 8 ¶5-Page 9 Line 2) that the combination renders the device of Bruhl inoperable and changes the principle of operation of Bruhl. The examiner notes that the features being argued are described only in the Fig 2 embodiment of Bruhl, and the Fig 1 embodiment of Bruhl does not have the requirements being argued. Thus since the Fig 1 embodiment of Bruhl is the system at issue, applicants arguments are not convincing.
In response to Applicants argument (Page 9 ¶1-3) against the proposed modification to arrive at Attached Figure D, the examiner notes that: 1) the difference between Attached Figure D and Fig 1 of Bruhl is that the two pumps are placed in parallel by providing a header on the low pressure side to connect the inlets of the two pumps, and there is a header on the high pressure side to connect the outlets of the two pumps. Furthermore, Fig 2 of Bruhl teaches providing a header on the high pressure side to connect the two outlets of the two pumps. The common sense of a PHOSITA would be sufficient to reach the conclusion that, if I can combine the outlets for some benefit, I can also combine the inlets for a similar benefit. Additionally, it has been held that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As it relates to the instant application, the creative steps of the PHOSITA would include providing a header on the low pressure side of the Fig 1 embodiment of Bruhl, given that there is already a teaching for placing a header on the high pressure side as taught in Fig 2 of Bruhl.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 9 ¶4: Applicant traverses the rejection(s) of claim(s) 37 based entirely on the arguments discussed above with respect to claim(s) 21.
--Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Applicant makes no new arguments with respect to claim(s) 37. Thus applicants arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons already discussed above.--
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746