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.
Claim(s) 10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malvasi et al. (US2017/0067469) in view of Rosinski et al. (US 2018/0320778) and Nagano et al..
With regards to claim 10, Malvasi et al. discloses an automotive electric liquid pump (title) for providing a pressurized pumping liquid (conventional), the automotive electric liquid pump comprising a positive displacement pump section 20 comprising a pump rotor 21, a motor section 22 which is arranged in an axial alignment with the positive displacement pump (fig. 1), the motor section comprising a dry electromagnetic motor stator 48, a motor control electronics 24 which is configured to drive the dry electromagnetic stator (paragraph [0022]), and a wet permanently-magnetized motor rotor 32 which is separated from the dry electromagnetic motor stator via a separation wall 50 which is substantially cylindrical (paragraph [0021] and fig. 1), an internal electronics cooling circuit (passage through shaft pipe 80) which is configured to actively cool the motor control electronics with the pressurized pumping liquid (paragraph [0027]), a motor rotor chamber in which the wet permanently-magnetized motor rotor is arranged, a bottom wall which is configured to axially close the motor rotor chamber (inside can 50 closed by wall 14 and 96), a rotor shaft 80 which is configured to co-rotatably support the pump rotor and the wet permanently-magnetized motor rotor (fig. 1), the rotor shaft being arranged as an axial liquid pump comprising a motor-sided axial opening and a pump-sided shaft axial opening (fig. 1), the axial liquid pipe being part of the internal electronics cooling circuit (through cooling bore 82: paragraph [0027] and fig. 1), wherein the motor control electronics comprises power semiconductors (paragraph [002]) which are arranged to be in direct thermal contact with the bottom wall (fig. 1). Malvasi et al. does not disclose the pump rotor arranged within a pump chamber which is substantially defined by a pump main housing, and a separate axial pump cover housing part which is axially mounted to the pump main housing and which comprises a proximal throttle groove which provides a fluid connection between the pump-sided shaft axial opening and a static low-pressure pump inlet chamber or with a static high-pressure pump outlet chamber, the proximal throttle groove defining a narrowest cross section of the internal electronics cooling circuit. However, Rosinski et al. teaches a fluid pump 12 comprising a positive displacement pump section comprising a pump rotor which is arranged within a pump chamber which is substantially defined by a pump main housing (paragraph [0017]), and a separate axial pump cover housing part which is axially mounted to the pump main housing (fig. 4: left side section that includes inlet 20 and outlet 22) and which comprises a proximal throttle groove 82 which provides a fluid connection between the pump-sided shaft axial opening and a static low-pressure pump inlet chamber (as can be seen by arrows depicting fluid flow in figure 4) or with a static high-pressure pump outlet chamber, the proximal throttle groove defining a narrowest cross section of the internal electronics cooling circuit (cross section of throttle grove is visibly smaller than central cooling opening in rotor/motor shaft as shown in figure 4). Although Rosinski et al. does explicitly state that groove 82 is smaller than cooling flow path 80 in cross section however, it has been held that “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). As can clearly be seen from figure 4, groove 82 clearly has a smaller cross section than the cross section of cooling flow path 80. Further, because 82 is described as recirculating flow path for excess fluid, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that grove 82 would be smaller in cross section than cooling flow path 80. Furthermore, Nagano et al. teaches providing a throttle passage 57a in a groove provided in an axial pump/compressor housing part, the throttle passage in communication with a supply of fluid (paragraphs [0035]-[0036] and fig. 1). As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, such throttle passage is useful in regulating the flow of fluid going through the groove. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the automotive electric liquid of Malvasi et al. by substituting his pump arrangement for the one taught by Rosinski et al. and Nagano et al. as is known in the art because it would have amounted to simply substituting one known pump arrangement for another to obtain predictable results. It would have further been obvious to provide a throttle groove as claimed with the claimed relative cross section, in light of the teachings of Rosinski et al. and Nakano et al., in order to regulate fluid flow out of the pump cover.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant should note that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to provide the appropriate cross section to the throttle groove that would yield the desired volume flow through routine experimentation. As it has been held, “[W}here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, see figure 1 of both Rosinski et al. and Nagano et al. In both instances the pump rotor covers the throttle groove sine the pump rotor seats above the radial throttle groove.
Regarding claim 15, see figure 1 of Rosinski et al. with pump inlet 20 and pump outlet 22.
Regarding claim 16, Rosinski et al. teaches that the type of pump used could be a Gerotor-type pump (paragraph [0017]) and as is known in the art such pumps typically two pump rotors cooperating with each other.
Regarding claim 17, Rosinski et al. teaches the pump having an axial pump inlet port 20 and a radial pump outlet port 22 instead of an axial outlet however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that having both the inlet port and the outlet port de disposed axially is an obvious matter of design choice wherein no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the inlet and the outlet ports disposed axially versus the arrangement taught by Malvasi et al./Rosinski et al./Nagano et al. Furthe, Official Notice is taken in that it is known to have both the inlet and the outlet ports of such pumps disposed in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 18, Nagano et al. teaches that such pressurized liquid could be oil, see paragraph [0033].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malvasi et al./Rosinski et al./Nagano et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lee (US Patent 10,197,061).
Malvasi et al./Rosinski et al./Nagano et al. discloses an automotive electric liquid pump as shown above including a cylindrical bottom wall 96 that axially closes the motor rotor chamber (Malvasi et al.: figure 1). Malvasi et al./Rosinski et al./Nagano et al. does not disclose the bottom wall closing the motor chamber via an outside radial surface of the outer cylindrical wall directly contacting an inside radial surface of the separation wall. Malvasi et al. discloses an arrangement where the separation wall 50 extends to the bottom wall 96 thus, doing away with a need for a bottom wall that requires the bottom wall closing the motor chamber via an outside radial surface of the outer cylindrical wall directly contacting an inside radial surface of the separation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, having the bottom wall to close the motor chamber via an outside radial surface of the outer cylindrical wall directly contacting an inside radial surface of the separation wall is an obvious matter of design choice wherein no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the bottom wall of the pump of Malvasi et al./Rosinski et al./Nagamo et al. to close the motor rotor chamber via an outside radial surface of the outer cylindrical wall directly contacting an inside radial surface of the separation wall versus the simple arrangement disclosed by Malvasi et al./Rosinski et al./Nagano et al., as long as the bottom wall effectively prevent liquid escaping from the motor rotor chamber. Further, it is known to have motor rotor chambers closed by cylindrical walls that close motor rotor chambers via an outside radial surface that directly contacts an inside radial surface of the separation wall as attested by Lee, see figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bottom wall of Malvasi et al./Rosinski et al./Nagano et al. to close the motor rotor chamber via an outside radial surface of the outer cylindrical wall directly contacting an inside radial surface, in light of the teachings of Lee, as a matter of obvious design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM – 6:00 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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746