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.
Claim(s) 16-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3822897 in view of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 and Pawellek US 2018/0238348. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of DE 3822897 (14 page FOR – 09/08/2025 in the file wrapper), is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 16: DE 3822897 discloses the limitations: An automotive electronic flow pump (¶0020) comprising:
a pump wheel 7’ which is configured to rotate (Fig 2, ¶0020), the pump wheel 7’ comprising an axial fluid inlet (inlet generally indicated by element 9’ in Fig 2) at a wheel upstream front side (Fig 2) and a radial fluid outlet (outlet generally indicated by element 10’ in Fig 2);
a pump housing (=6’ and the structure surrounding motor 3’ in Fig 2) which defines a pumping chamber (= chamber in Fig 2 which rotor 18’ and impeller 7’ are located) and an electronics chamber (= chamber in Fig 2 where control circuit 4’ is located);
a motor (3’, Fig 2) which is configured to directly drive the pump wheel and which is arranged within the pumping chamber (as understood from Fig 2, the rotor of the motor 3’ is formed in one piece with the pump wheel 7’; thus the motor directly drives the pump wheel and is arranged in the pumping chamber as claimed, and as seen in Fig 2), the motor comprising,
a motor stator (= structure generally indicated by element 3’ in Fig 2) which comprises at least one stator coil (the motor stator inherently has at least one stator coil), and
a motor rotor (= part indicated by element 18’ in Fig 2) which is arranged at a front side of the pump wheel (Fig 2) and which is configured to co-rotate with the pump wheel (as understood from Fig 2);
a static separation wall (2’, Fig 2 | 2’,15’, Fig 2) arranged at a backside of the pump wheel (Fig 2), the static separation wall being configured to fluidically separate the pumping chamber from the electronics chamber (as understood from Fig 2); and
a motor electronics (4’, Fig 2) arranged in the electronics chamber (Fig 2). DE 3822897 is silent regarding the limitations: an axial flux motor. The prior art of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 which is directed to an impeller pump for moving fluid through a heat exchange circuit (abstract, ¶0003) like DE 3822897, is noted.
However, Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 does disclose the limitations:
an axial-flux motor (23,22, ¶0047) which is configured to directly drive the pump wheel (pump wheel = 21; as seen in Fig 2, the pump wheel is embedded with the magnets 22 of the motor rotor, ¶0047 – thus the axial flux motor directly drives the pump wheel as claimed) and which is arranged within the pumping chamber (pumping chamber = space where impeller 21 is located in Fig 2; as seen in Fig 2 the magnets 22 of the motor rotor are located inside the pumping chamber as claimed), the axial-flux motor comprising, a motor stator (23, ¶0047-¶0048, Fig 2) which comprises at least one stator coil (23b, ¶0057, Fig 2), and a motor rotor (magnets 22 define the motor rotor, ¶0059, ¶0047, ¶0050) which is arranged at a front side of the pump wheel (as seen in Fig 2) and which is configured to co-rotate with the pump wheel (¶0059, ¶0047, ¶0050).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pump arrangement (Fig 2) of DE 3822897 with the pump arrangement (Fig 1) of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724; and to replace the motor (3’, Fig 2) of DE 3822897 with the axial-flux motor (23,22, ¶0047) of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 in order to make the overall apparatus more compact, and/or increase pump performance and raise an upper limit for handled-fluid temperature (¶0074).
DE 3822897 is silent regarding the limitations: the motor electronics being electrically connected to the at least one stator coil. The prior art of Pawellek US 2018/0238348 which is directed to a motor driven coolant pump for use in an automobile, where the motor 2 which drives the impeller 20 of the cooling pump is located on an opposite axial side as the control circuit 3 (¶0017, Figs 1-3) like DE 3822897, is noted.
However, Pawellek US 2018/0238348 discloses the limitations: a motor 2 which is configured to drive the pump wheel (as understood from Figs 1-8, ¶0056) and which is arranged within the pumping chamber (Figs 1-4, ¶0056; pump chamber 10), the motor 2 comprising, a motor stator 25 which comprises at least one stator coil (¶0055), and a motor electronics (3, ¶0065-¶0067), the motor electronics being directly electrically connected to the at least one stator coil (the motor electronics are directly electrically connected to the coils of the stator via bus rail 35, Figs 1-6, ¶0052-¶0055, ¶0065-¶0067).
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 pump housing (6’ & the structure surrounding motor 3’ in Fig 2) and the electrical connection between the motor electronics (4’, Fig 2) and the motor (3’, Fig 2) of DE 3822897 so as to be directly electrically connected and/or protected from the pumped fluid using a bus bar 35 which extends through channel 15 in spiral housing section 11 of the pump housing 1 (¶0058, ¶0055, ¶0066-¶0067) of Pawellek US 2018/0238348, in light of the teachings of Pawellek US 2018/0238348 (¶0066-¶0067, ¶0052-¶0055), in order to stimulate the at least one stator coil that is driven by the power electronics.
Regarding Claim 17: DE 3822897 as modified by Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 and Pawellek US 2018/0238348 does disclose the limitations: at least two coil-connecting wires (since the axial-flux motor (23,22, ¶0047, ¶0057) of Kuronuma is disclosed as having a plurality of coils 23b, there would inherently be at least two coil-connecting wires in the bus bar 35 of Pawellek, one wire for each of the respective coils) which are arranged to axially pass the pumping chamber radially outside of the pumping chamber (as seen in Fig 4 of Pawellek the bus bar 35/the at least two coil connecting wires is arranged to axially pass the pumping chamber 10 at a location that is radially outside of the pumping chamber 10 as claimed) and which directly electrically connect the motor electronics to the at least one stator coil (given that the claims do not recite any particular structure beside what is claimed and made obvious by the prior art of Pawellek US 2018/0238348 that would enable the motor electronics to be directly electrically connected to the at least one stator coil. Thus, because the structure of Pawellek US 2018/0238348 makes obvious the claimed structure, it is reasonable to conclude that it will also meet the functional limitation).
Regarding Claim 18: DE 3822897 as modified by Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 and Pawellek US 2018/0238348 does disclose the limitations: wherein each of the at least two coil-connecting wires are combined in one single substantially axial connecting wires path (it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to know how to connect wiring between a motor and controller (i.e. wherein each of the at least two coil-connecting wires are combined in one single substantially axial connecting wires path) as required to meet design constraints.
PNG
media_image1.png
892
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Pawellek US 2018/0238348 (Attached Figure A)
Regarding Claim 19: Pawellek US 2018/0238348 does disclose the limitations: wherein the one single substantially axial connecting wires path is provided circumferentially in an upstream volute-half-sector where a cross section of a volute channel (see Annotated Figure 4 of Pawellek US 2018/0238348 (Attached Figure A) above; volute channel = volute defined by pump chamber 10; it is noted that even through the prior art of DE 3822897 does not show the volute in the Figures, one would inherently be present given that DE ‘897 is directed to an impeller pump), which is defined by the pump housing (Attached Figure A) and which surrounds the radial fluid outlet of the pump wheel (i.e. outlet opening 24, Attached Figure A), is smaller than in a downstream volute-half-sector (Attached Figure A, in the combination of prior art the volute of DE ‘897 would be structure in the manner shown in Fig 4 of Pawellek US 2018/0238348, and would thus have the upstream volute-half-sector be smaller than the downstream-volute-half-sector as shown in Attached Figure A).
Regarding Claim 21: DE 3822897 does disclose the limitations: wherein the static separation wall (2’,15’, Fig 2) is a static separation wall body (it is 2’,15’, Fig 2 is a static separation wall body as claimed since it separates motor electronics 4’ from the pump chamber) which defines a friction bearing support element (friction bearing support element = 15’, since bearings 20’ and 19’ in Fig 2 are supported by element 15’, element 15’ is a friction bearing support element as claimed) which is arranged to protrude axially (Fig 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
861
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of DE 3822897 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 22: DE 3822897 as modified by Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 and Pawellek US 2018/0238348 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 16. Additionally DE 3822897 discloses the limitations: wherein, the motor electronics comprises a circuit board (see Annotated Figure 2 of DE 3822897 (Attached Figure B) above; as seen in Attached Figure B the control circuit includes a circuit board which the various electronic components are mounted to), the static separation wall is arranged to substantially lie in a transversal plane (Attached Figure B) and comprises at least one proximal protuberance (Attached Figure B), the at least one proximal protuberance defines a protuberance cavity (Attached Figure B). DE 3822897 does not disclose the limitations: a printed circuit board, and a contact pin end is arranged to protrude from the printed circuit board of the motor electronics into the protuberance cavity.
However Pawellek US 2018/0238348 does disclose the limitations: wherein, the motor electronics 3 comprises a printed circuit board (36, ¶0065), and a contact pin end (i.e. left end of contact pin 37 in Fig 1 of Pawellek; in the combination of prior art the identified contact pin end of contact 37 of Pawellek would be located to the left of the circuit board/printed circuit board, and as a result would be located within the identified protuberance cavity in Attached Figure B of DE ‘897) is arranged to protrude from the printed circuit board of the motor electronics (as seen in Fig 1, the identified contact pin end protrudes from the left side of the printed circuit board 36) into the protuberance cavity (in the combination of prior art the identified contact pin end of contact 37 of Pawellek would be located to the left of the circuit board/printed circuit board, and as a result would be located within the identified protuberance cavity in Attached Figure B of DE ‘897).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the circuit board (Attached Figure B) of DE 3822897 with the printed circuit board 36 and the contact pints 37 of Pawellek US 2018/0238348 in order to rapidly provide the motor electronics (i.e. via printing) during the manufacturing of the device (¶0065) and/or in order to space the circuit board apart from other structures of the device using the contact pins (¶0065).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3822897 in view of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 and Pawellek US 2018/0238348 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Popov US 2016/0365768.
Regarding Claim 20: DE 3822897 as modified by Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 and Pawellek US 2018/0238348 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 16. DE 3822897 does not disclose the limitations: the motor electronics is arranged to be in a direct thermal contact with the static separation wall.
However Pawellek US 2018/0238348 does disclose the limitations: the motor electronics 3 is arranged to be in a direct thermal contact with the static separation wall (¶0065 – in direct thermal contact via heat-conducting paste, in the combination of prior art element 31 of Pawellek corresponds to the static separation wall 2’ of DE ‘897).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the connection between the motor electronics 4' and the static separation wall 2’ of DE 3822897 with the connection using the heat-conducting paste taught by Pawellek US 2018/0238348 in order to improve the heat transfer to the fluid being moved by the pump.
DE 3822897 does not disclose the limitations: the static separation wall is a metal sheet body.
However Popov US 2016/0365768 does disclose the limitations: wherein the static separation wall (32, Fig 2) is a metal sheet body (¶0026, element 32 is part of sheet metal body 22 described in ¶0024-¶0026).
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 static separation wall (2’, Fig 2 | 2’,15’, Fig 2) of DE 3822897 so as to have a low-cost, efficient, and provide fluidic impermeability using a sheet metal body 22 of Popov US 2016/0365768, in light of the teachings of Popov US 2016/0365768 (¶0006-¶0007, ¶0011-¶0012, ¶0025-¶0026¶), in order to reduce the manufacturing cost of the static separation wall.
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
Claim 31 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 31: the prior art of record is unable to anticipate or make obvious the limitations set forth in claim 31 “at least the cast-in section of the stiff U-shaped coil connecting wire is cast into the electronics chamber lid body” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 31.
The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 31 including at least the cast-in section of the stiff U-shaped coil connecting wire is cast into the electronics chamber lid body.
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.
Claims 23-30 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 23: the prior art of record is unable to anticipate or make obvious the limitations set forth in claim 23 “at least the cast-in section of the stiff U-shaped coil connecting wire is cast into the electronics chamber lid body” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 23 and the limitations of intervening claim 22 and independent claim 16.
The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 23 including at least the cast-in section of the stiff U-shaped coil connecting wire is cast into the electronics chamber lid body.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 9 Line 16-Page 10 Line 1: Applicant argues that a PHOSITA would not be able to combine the art of DE 3822897, Kuronuma US 2019/0203724, and Pawellek US 2018/0238348 to arrive at the present invention, and argues that the combination of an axial flow pump and motor electronics creates additional problems because the motor electronics require active cooling.
--Arguments not persuasive. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the claims are silent regarding the pump being an axial flow pump. Claim 16 clearly states that the outlet is a radial fluid outlet. Furthermore, axial pumps are known in the art to have axial fluid outlets. Thus the pump being claimed is not an axial flow pump since the pump is claimed as delivering the pumped fluid from a radial fluid outlet. Thus applicant is arguing a pump that is different from the pump being claimed, and because of this applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 10 ¶1-Page 13 Line 6: Applicant argues: against the teachings of DE ‘897 & Kuronuma individually, argues that – because Kuronuma is directed to a pump used in semiconductor manufacturing and not an automobile pump – the combination of DE 3822897 & Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 is based on hindsight, that there is no reason to combine DE ‘897 & Kuronuma, and argues a simple replacement of the motor of Kuronuma for the motor of DE ‘897 would not work, and because of this a PHOSITA would not combine the art of DE 3822897, Kuronuma US 2019/0203724, and Pawellek US 2018/0238348 to arrive at the present invention.
--Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that (because Kuronuma is directed to a pump used in semiconductor manufacturing and not an automobile pump like DE ‘897) Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 is directed to a motor driven impeller pump, just like the prior art of DE ‘897 and the instant application. Furthermore, like the instant application (see Page 1 of SPEC filed 07/25/2024), the prior art of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 uses an axial flux motor in order to make the pump more compact (¶0074).
Accordingly, the teachings of Kuronuma is in the field of the inventors endeavor (i.e. is in the field of motor driven non-positive displacement pumps) and is pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (i.e. compactness; see Page 1 of the SPEC which states in part “The electromagnetic part of an electronic flow pump can be realized as a radial-flux motor or as an axial-flux motor, whereas an axial-flux motor generally is more compact compared to a radial-flux motor of the same electric performance.” & “It is an object of the invention, to provide a compact automotive electronic flow pump.”). Thus applicants argument that a PHOSITA would not use the teachings of Kuronuma to modify DE ‘897 are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art of DE ‘897 & Kuronuma the examiner notes that the prior art of DE ‘897 teaches a radial flow pump with an axial inlet and a radial outlet, with the motor electronics 4’ located on an opposite axial side of the impeller as the motor 3’. While DE ‘897 doesn’t teach an axial flux motor, the prior art of Kuronuma does teach an axial flux motor (23.22). And in the axial flux motor of Kuronuma the impeller 21 and the magnets 22 of the motor rotor are combined (Kuronuma – Fig 2, ¶0047) such that the pumped fluid flows axially into and radially out of the combined motor rotor/impeller just like DE ‘897 which has impeller 7’ and the motor rotor 18’ combined such that the pumped fluid flows axially into and radially out of the combined motor rotor/impeller (DE ‘897 – Fig 2).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness 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). Furthermore, in the current rejection, the teachings of Kuronuma are used to modify the pump arrangement (Fig 2) of DE 3822897 in order to make the overall apparatus more compact, and/or increase pump performance and raise an upper limit for handled-fluid temperature (Kuronuma –¶0074).
Additionally, as seen from the explanation of the prior art above, the main difference between the prior art of DE ‘897 & Kuronuma – is that DE ‘897 has a radial motor & Kuronuma has an axial motor, where the fluid flows generated by the motor driven pump is the same in both of the prior art references. Accordingly contrary to Applicants assertion (Page 10 Line 8), the combination of DE ‘897 & Kuronuma teaches a pump having an axial flux motor.
Furthermore, since DE ‘897 teaches that element 4’ (¶0019, ¶0025-¶0026, ¶0028) controls operation of the motor 3’ there would inherently be a connection between the stator coils and element 4’, even though DE ‘897 is silent as to such a connection.
Therefore, while DE ‘897 doesn’t teach an electrical connection between the motor electronics 4’ (located on an opposite axial side of the impeller as the stator) and a coil of the stator, the prior art of Pawellek US 2018/0238348 does teach such a connection with bus rail 35. And in the device of Pawellek the stator 25 and the motor electronics 3 are located on opposite axial sides of the impeller 22 such that the pumped fluid flows axially into and radially out of the impeller 22, just like DE ‘897.
Furthermore, in the current rejection, the teachings of Pawellek are used to modify the pump arrangement (Fig 2) of DE 3822897 in order to stimulate the at least one stator coil that is driven by the power electronics.
Accordingly contrary to Applicants assertion (Page 10 Line 8-9), the combination of DE ‘897, Kuronuma, and Pawellek teaches a pump having an axial flux motor and how the axial flux motor is driven (via the electronic connection between the motor electronics and the coils of the stator – as taught by Pawellek) as claimed.
Thus for the reasons explained above, the combination of DE 3822897, Kuronuma US 2019/0203724, and Pawellek US 2018/0238348 only takes into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made. Thus the reconstruction is popper.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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 articulated reasoning comes from the teachings of the prior art (e.g. using an axial gap motor to drive an impeller in order to make the device more compact - Kuronuma –¶0074; and in order to stimulate the at least one stator coil that is driven by the power electronics - Pawellek – ¶0055).
Additionally, regarding applicants argument (Page 11 Line 3-20) that because Kuronuma states that the motor casing 25 is open so that the windings 23b are immersed in the handled fluid (¶0061 of Kuronuma) a PHOSITA would not be able to make a simple replacement of the motor as suggested in the rejection; and argues (Page 12 Line 1-8) that replacement of the motor of Kuronuma for the motor of DE 3822897 would require the motor electronics of DE 3822897 to be rearranged outside of the liquid tank as taught by Kuronuma.
The examiner notes, that given the construction illustrated in Fig 2 of DE ‘897, the base reference of DE 3822897 does not need the windings of the stator to be immersed in the fluid like Kuronuma. Accordingly, when the replacement of the motor is made as suggested, there is nothing that would REQUIRE the stator coils to be immersed in the pumped fluid as argued. The motor driven pump of DE ‘897 as modified by Kuronuma would interact with the fluid being pumped in the same way as is done in Fig 2 of DE ‘897. Also, it is well known that electric motors are able to function without their stator coils being immersed in a pumped fluid.
Additionally, there is no language recited in the claim that requires the stator windings to be immersed in the pumped fluid as argued. Thus the examiner is not convinced that a PHOSITA would be unable to replace the motors as articulated in the rejection above.
Furthermore, with respect to applicants assertion that: replacement of the motor of Kuronuma for the motor of DE 3822897 would require the motor electronics of DE 3822897 to be rearranged outside of the liquid tank as taught by Kuronuma the examiner strongly disagrees. Since the art of DE ‘897 is the base reference, and there is no difference between the arrangement of the motor electronics in DE ‘897 and what is claimed, the arrangement of the motor electronics in the prior art of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 is not germane to the combination of prior art given the factual inquiries which are used to determine obviousness under §103.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 13 Line 6-15: Applicant continues to traverse the rejection of claim 16, and argues the teachings of Pawellek are irrelevant because Kuronuma teaches that the motor electronics are located externally of tank 10 in which pump 20 is immersed.
--Arguments not persuasive. As explained above, because the art of DE ‘897 is the base reference, and there is no difference between the arrangement of the motor electronics in DE ‘897 and what is recited in claim 16, the arrangement of the motor electronics in the prior art of Kuronuma US 2019/0203724 is not germane to the combination of prior art given the factual inquiries which are used to determine obviousness under §103.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 13 Line 16-Page 14 Line 9: Applicant traverses the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 based entirely on the arguments discussed above with respect to claim(s) 16.
--Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Applicant makes no new arguments with respect to claim(s) 20. Thus applicants arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons already discussed above.--.
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 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