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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, 17-19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2023/0050981). Suzuki discloses a lubrication system for a transmission (fig. 2), comprising:
Re claim 1, a first sump (Sb) including a first sump drain through hole (hole at the bottom of 137); a second sump (Sc) including a second sump drain through hole (hole at the top of 137), where the second sump is positioned vertically above and spaced apart from the first sump (fig. 2); and a pipe (137) directly connecting the first sump drain through hole and the second sump drain through hole by extending from the first sump drain through hole to the second sump drain through hole (fig. 2).
Re claim 4, further comprising one or more rotatable transmission components (253a) that are positioned between the second sump and the first sump, with respect to a vertical axis.
Re claim 5, further comprising a pump (6, 7, 50; par [0123]) and a conduit extending from the pump to the second sump (conduit defined by the travel path from 50 and delivered to 15 shown in fig. 22, then delivered to pipe 127 shown in fig. 21, then to hole 136a and into the second sump Sc shown in fig. 2).
Re claim 6, where the pump is configured to draw fluid from the first sump (par [0123] and par [0257-0258]) directly to the second sump (at least a portion of the fluid picked up by the pump is guided directly to the second sump without lubricating or cooling any other components therebetween).
Re claim 7, wherein the pipe is configured to drain transmission fluid from the first sump and the second sump at the same time (by inspection of fig. 2, removing the plug bolt would drain both sumps at the same time).
Re claim 9, a method for a transmission (fig. 2) of a vehicle, comprising: integrating a first sump (Sb) including a first sump drain through hole (hole at the bottom of 13) in the transmission; integrating a second sump (Sc) including a second sump drain through hole (hole at the top of 137) in the transmission, where the second sump is positioned vertically above and spaced apart from the first sump (fig. 2); and integrating a pipe (137) from the first sump drain through hole to the second sump drain through hole.
Re claim 11, further comprising installing a plug (plug bolt shown at the bottom of 137 in fig. 2) into the first sump drain through hole that blocks the first sump drain through hole and the pipe.
Re claim 12, further comprising removing the plug and draining the first sump and the second sump via the first sump drain through hole to replace a fluid in the transmission (by inspection of fig. 2, removing the plug bolt would drain both sumps at the same time; this would allow for the fluid to be replaced).
Re claim 17, further comprising a passage (hollow path of 137) extending from the second sump drain through hole to the first sump drain through hole.
Re claim 18, further comprising a plug configured to block the first sump drain through hole and the passage (plug bolt shown at the bottom of 137 in fig. 2).
Re claim 19, further comprising a pump (6, 7, 50; par [0123]) configured to deliver a fluid to one or more rotatable transmission components.
Re claim 21, further comprising a pump (6, 7, 50; par [0123]) configured to deliver a fluid from the first sump to the second sump (oil picked up by 50 and delivered to 15 shown in fig. 22, then delivered to pipe 127 shown in fig. 21, then to hole 136a and in to the second sump Sc shown in fig. 2).
Re claim 22, further comprising a space between the first sump and the second sump (fig. 2 shows the spaced defined by Sa).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
Claim 8 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that the colors in Applicant’s annotated figure in the Remarks could not be displayed when entered into system by the Office.
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Suzuki the hole at the bottom of 137 is distant from the first sump Sc therefore could not be construed as a first sump drain through hole. Suzuki provides not mention or suggestion that the radial passage 137 includes a drain through hole at all. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not preclude the hole at the bottom of 137, in Suzuki fig. 2, to be construed as a first sump drain hole. Fig. 2 shows a substantial portion of the first sump Sb to be vertically above the bottom end of pipe 137. With the bolt removed, oil is able to drain out of first sump Sb via 128, 112a, and 138 to the drain hole, especially when the vehicle is on an incline. In fig. 2, the bolt shown at the bottom of pipe 137 is a drain bolt. By removing the drain bolt, the bottom end of 137 would open and allow for oil to drain out due to gravity.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues Suzuki fails to teach a pipe directly connecting the through holes due to communication hole 112a. At best, Suzuki teaches the first sump and second sump drain into the reservoir 128. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The oil does not travel from the second sump drain through hole, then to communication hole 112a, and finally to the first sum drain through hole. Rather, Suzuki fig. 2 shows a direct line defined by 137 that, when the drain is removed, oil would fall directly from the second sump drain through hole to the first sum drain through hole.
On page 8, Applicant’s argument to claim 2 is moot because the rejection to claim 2 is now withdrawn.
On page 8, Applicant argues Suzuki fails to teach a pump directly drawing fluid from the first sump to the second sump. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Suzuki shows the fluid travel path from 50 and delivered to 15 shown in fig. 22, then delivered to pipe 127 shown in fig. 21, then to hole 136a and into the second sump Sc shown in fig. 2. As such, at least a portion of the fluid picked up by the pump is guided directly to the second sump without lubricating or cooling any other components therebetween. In other words, the various structures of the transmission serve to guide this portion of the fluid directly from the first sump to the second sump.
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 MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights