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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of July 14, 2026 which amended claim 1 and added new claims 5-11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 2, 7, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameya et al (USPAP 2005/0265860) in view of Bodzak (USPN 8,974,207).
With regards to claim 1, Kameya et al discloses an internal gear pump (see Fig. 7) comprising: an inner rotor (41) including a plurality of external teeth (as shown on element 1 of Fig. 3); an outer rotor (42) including a plurality of internal teeth (as shown on element 2 of Fig. 3) engaging with the plurality of external teeth; a housing (labeled in annotated Fig. 7 below) rotatably housing the inner rotor and the outer rotor; and an axial gap motor including a stator (49, labeled in annotated Fig. 7) and a motor rotor (47, labeled in annotated Fig. 7), wherein the outer rotor is the motor rotor (clearly shown in Fig. 7), wherein the housing includes a peripheral wall portion (labeled in the annotated Fig. 7) provided in a cylindrical form so as to surround an outer periphery of the outer rotor, and a first cover portion (labeled in the annotated Fig. 7) and a second cover portion (labeled in the annotated Fig. 7) each covering a corresponding one of two end portions of the peripheral wall portion, wherein the first cover portion is disposed between the stator and the outer rotor (see Fig. 7), and wherein the second cover portion has a suction port (labeled in the annotated Fig. 7) and a discharge port (labeled in the annotated Fig. 7) that communicate with an inside of the housing. Kameya et al do not disclose that the inner rotor is rotatably supported with respect to a pin fixed to the second cover portion, the pin not extending through the entire inner rotor.
Bodzak discloses a gear pump (see title) having an inner rotor (3, see Figs 1 & 2) is rotatably supported with respect to a pin (4) fixed to the second cover portion (5), the pin not extending through the entire inner rotor (Fig. 1 & 2).
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a pin that does not extend through the entire rotor, as taught by Bodzak, for the pin of Kameya et al which extends through and past the length of the inner rotor thickness since each of these pin supports are recognized as equivalence for their use in the gear pump art and selection of either of these known equivalents to rotatably support the inner rotor of the gear pump would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 CCPA 1955).
With regards to claim 2, Kameya et al additionally disclose the internal gear pump according to claim 1, as set forth above, wherein the first cover portion is made of a nonmagnetic material (see paragraph [0050]).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 7, Kameya et al additionally disclose wherein the plurality of external teeth is one less than the plurality of internal teeth. As shown in Fig. 2 the gear pump that is driven by each embodiment of the motor of Kameya et al the plurality of external teeth (6 teeth) is one less than the plurality of internal teeth (7 teeth).
With regards to claim 8, Kameya et al additionally disclose wherein the inner rotor is eccentric with respect to a center of the outer rotor. As shown in Fig. 2 the gear pump that is driven by each embodiment of the motor of Kameya et al has an inner rotor (1) that is eccentric with respect to a center of the outer rotor (2).
With regards to claim 11, Kameya et al additionally disclose wherein the outer rotor (42, in Fig. 7) includes a base portion (47, labeled in the annotated figure above) having a first surface (labeled in the annotated figure above) facing the first cover portion and a magnet (48, labeled in the annotated figure above; the initial lead line for the reference numeral for reference no. 48 is in error as is clear from paragraph [0085]) fixed to the base portion such that the first surface and a surface of the magnet are flush (clearly shown in Fig. 7) with each other.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameya et al in view Bodzak, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Metzner et al (USPN 5,219,276).
As set forth above Kameya et al in view of Bodzak disclose the invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 but do not disclose that the thickness of the first cover, i.e., the element between the rotor and the stator, is 0.3mm to 5 mm.
Metzner et al discloses a gear pump (see Fig. 2) and notes that the gap tube element 26 (which is analogous to the first cover element) has a thickness of 0.1 mm or less and as set forth in column 3 lines 48-50 the thickness of the wall is related to the stability of the wall.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the wall to make sure that it was still stable in the environment it would operating under while also functioning to transfer the electromagnetic field from the stator to the rotor as required. It is noted that “where 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).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameya et al in view of Bodzak, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Russalian (USPAP 2023/0044524).
As set forth above Kameya et al in view of Bodzak disclose the invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 but do not disclose that a clearance between the first cover portion and the outer rotor is 0.01 mm to 0.20 mm.
Russalian discloses a similar axial motor driven pump (see Fig. 1) including a stator (201) driving a rotor (110, 115) which rotates the pump member 151. Russalian discusses in paragraph [0030] that the gap G between the stator and the rotor is from 0.2 mm to 1.5 mm and “is preferably as small as possible in order to realize maximum magnetic efficiency”. While there is no first cover between the stator and the rotor in Russalian inserting one would make the gap G even smaller so that with a gap of 0.2 mm for instance a clearance of less than 0.2 mm between the cover portion and the outer rotor would be obtained.
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a clearance between the first cover portion and the outer rotor as small as possible, to clearances such as 0.01 mm to 0.20 mm, in order to realize maximum magnetic efficiency” as taught by Russalian. It is noted that “where 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).
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameya et al in view of Bodzak, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sandner et al (USPN 11,133,734).
As set forth above Kameya et al in view of Bodzak disclose the invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 but do not disclose wherein the stator includes a stator core including a yoke and a plurality of teeth, and a plurality of coils respectively provided on the plurality of teeth (claim 5), that the stator core includes an annular peripheral wall portion disposed on a peripheral edge portion of the yoke, and a distal end surface of the annular peripheral wall portion is connected to the first cover portion (cl. 6) or that the peripheral wall portion of the housing is made of an aluminum-based material (cl. 9).
Sandner et al disclose an axial flux motor having a stator in Fig. 1 & 3 includes a stator core (3) including a yoke (7.1) and a plurality of teeth (9), and a plurality of coils (17, 18) respectively provided on the plurality of teeth (claim 5), that the stator core includes an annular peripheral wall portion (labeled in the annotated figure below) disposed on (this is a relatively broad term and the peripheral wall is disposed on the yoke via the wall that is analogous to the first cover portion) a peripheral edge portion of the yoke, and a distal end surface of the annular peripheral wall portion is connected to the first cover portion (as shown in the annotated figure the peripheral wall and the “first cover” are integral) (cl. 6) or that the peripheral wall portion (labeled in the annotated figure) of the housing is made of an aluminum-based material (see col. 2 lines 24 and 25).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the peripheral wall of the housing surrounding the wall (50) of the pump or to add a peripheral wall around the stator portion of aluminum in order to provide protection for the stator (cl. 9), to make the peripheral walls of aluminum to improve cooling (cl. 6 or 9); or to provide a yoke, teeth and plural coils as a well-known stator construction (Note MPEP 2144.06).
PNG
media_image2.png
390
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameya et al in view of Bodzak, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyagi et al (USPAP 2005/0042124).
As set forth above Kameya et al in view of Bodzak disclose the invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 but do not disclose that the non-magnetic material is Aluminum. Miyagi et al discloses a similar gear pump having a casing (30, see Fig. 2) that includes a wall (analogous to the first cover) that is made of aluminum (see [0100]).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first cover include aluminum in order to provide a cover of high permeability (see [00100] of Miyagi et al). Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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
CGF
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights