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) 9-11, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al (US PGPub No. 2010/0272592) in view of JP 2006115612 (herein Tsukamoto) in view of Marioni (US Patent No. 2006/0034716).
A machine translation of Tsukamoto was provided by applicant on 01/19/2026.
Chien teaches:
limitations from claims 9 and 18, an automotive electronic fluid pump (FIG. 3-4) comprising an electric pump motor (8), the electric pump motor comprising: an electromagnetic motor stator (83) comprising stator coils (831); a rotor comprising a motor rotor (7), a pump rotor (5), and a rotor shaft (3), the motor rotor being configured to be electromagnetically driven by the electromagnetic motor stator (paragraph 16); a separation tube (412) which fluidically separates a wet motor rotor chamber from a dry motor stator chamber (FIG. 3; paragraph 8), the separation tube comprising a support section (around aperture 18); and a motor housing frame (81-82) which is arranged to be pot-like (FIG. 3-4), the motor housing frame comprising a support collar (see annotated FIG. 4 below), a frame bottom wall (82), and a frame side wall (81) which is arranged to be substantially cylindrical, the support collar being configured to directly support the support section of the separation tube (FIG. 4; paragraph 51-52); wherein, the frame bottom wall (82) defines a substantially transversal separation wall chamber, the frame side wall (81) supports a radial outside of the electromagnetic motor stator (FIG. 4), the motor housing frame is made from a deep-drawn metal sheet body, and the support collar of the motor housing frame is made via a reverse-drawing of the deep-drawn metal sheet body (this limitation is considered a product-by-process limitation, see MPEP 2113; the structure of the claims is taught by the prior art to Chien and therefore meets the limitations);
PNG
media_image1.png
594
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chien does not teach that the motor housing includes inside and outside layers of the support section;
Tsukamoto teaches an electric motor-driven pump (FIG. 1-2) including a motor (10) having a housing (2, 4); the housing including a support section (14) with an inner and outer wall connected by a portion (see FIG. 1); in which the walls of the housing are substantially the same width;
PNG
media_image2.png
518
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a double wall in the motor frame of Chien, or substitute the frame of Tsukamoto for the frame of Chien, in order to provide a reinforced support structure for the motor rotor;
Chien teaches that a controller is present to connect to and control the motor stator (paragraph 21, 58), and teaches that the bottom wall 82 of the motor frame includes an exit port for a power cable to connect the controller and motor (see bottom portion of paragraph 58). Chien does not disclose details of the controller or the relative placement of the motor frame wall in creating a dry chamber therefore;
Marioni teaches:
limitations from claim 9, a pump (1) including a stator (14), rotor (15-16), and shaft (4); and wherein a motor frame (13) separates a rotor chamber (about rotor 15 and within hollow body 12) from a chamber (box 19) including control electronics for the motor (paragraph 26 and 28; Marioni does not explicitly teach semiconductors; However, these are known and commonly used components in electronic circuits and would have been obvious to use in order to precisely control the electricity supplied to the motor);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a chamber for the control electronics of Chien below the motor, as taught by Marioni, in order to maintain the controller in close proximity to the motor while protecting the electronics from the pump components.
Chien further teaches:
limitations from claim 10, wherein, the support section of the separation tube comprises a radial outside surface, and the support collar of the motor housing frame is further configured to support the radial outside surface of the support section of the separate separation tube (see FIG. 3; the separation tube is mounted on the support collar of the frame, and therefore all parts of the tube are supported by the collar to some degree);
PNG
media_image3.png
594
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
limitations from claim 11, wherein the separation tube comprises a plastic separation tube body (paragraphs 20, 27);
limitations from claim 16, wherein the electronic fluid pump is a liquid pump (see paragraph 53);
limitations from claim 17, wherein the electronic fluid pump is a coolant liquid pump (the pump of Chien pumps a fluid, paragraph 53, and therefore is capable of pumping a variety of fluids including one used as a coolant as Chien otherwise teaches the structure of the claim);
Marioni further teaches:
limitations from claim 14, wherein, the dry electronics chamber comprises a proximal transversal wall, and the proximal transversal wall is entirely defined by the frame bottom wall of the motor housing frame (see annotated FIG. 1 below; additionally see wall 82 of Chien which forms the entirety of the bottom of the pump);
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al (US PGPub No. 2010/0272592) in view of JP 2006115612 (herein Tsukamoto) in view of Marioni (US Patent No. 2006/0034716) as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Chien et al (US Patent No. 9,169,842).
Chien ‘592 does not teach a separate plastic housing;
Chien ‘842 teaches a pump (FIG. 2) including a motor (8) having a frame (81); and a separate motor housing (9) configured to house the frame (FIG. 1) and produced from a plastic (C. 8 Lines 26-31);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to form the separate motor housing of Chien ‘592 from plastic, as taught by Chien ‘842, in order to provide additional corrosion protection.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US PGPub No. 2015/0303761) in view of JP 2006115612 (herein Tsukamoto).
Jacobsen teaches:
limitations from claim 9, an automotive electronic fluid pump (FIG. 1) comprising an electric pump motor (4), the electric pump motor comprising: an electromagnetic motor stator (16) comprising stator coils; a rotor (12) comprising a motor rotor, a pump rotor (8), and a rotor shaft (10), the motor rotor being configured to be electromagnetically driven by the electromagnetic motor stator (paragraph 32); a motor electronics (6) which is arranged within a dry electronics chamber (within terminal box 6; paragraph 33-34), the motor electronics comprising a commutation electronics and power semiconductors, the power semiconductors being configured to energize the stator coils (“frequency converter”, “electronic components”; paragraphs 33-34 and particularly 35); a separation tube (14) which fluidically separates a wet motor rotor chamber from a dry motor stator chamber (paragraph 32), the separation tube comprising a support section (flat bottom portion of 14); and a motor housing frame (stator housing 4; paragraph 38) which is arranged to be pot-like (see FIG. 1), the motor housing frame comprising a support collar, a frame bottom wall, and a frame side wall which is arranged to be substantially cylindrical (see annotated FIG. 1 below), the support collar being configured to directly support the support section of the separation tube (see FIG. 1); wherein, the frame bottom wall defines a substantially transversal separation wall which fluidically separates the wet motor rotor chamber (within tube 14; paragraph 32) from the dry electronics chamber (~6), the frame side wall supports a radial outside of the electromagnetic motor stator (16; FIG. 1 shows the frame wall support all of the motor components), the motor housing frame is made from a deep-drawn metal sheet body, and the support collar of the motor housing frame is made via a reverse-drawing of the deep-drawn metal sheet body (Jacobsen teaches metal housing bodies, paragraph 36; this limitation is considered a product-by-process limitation, see MPEP 2113; the structure of the claims is taught by the prior art to Chien and therefore meets the limitations);
PNG
media_image4.png
780
852
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jacobsen does not teach that the motor housing includes inside and outside layers of the support section;
Tsukamoto teaches an electric motor-driven pump (FIG. 1-2) including a motor (10) having a housing (2, 4); the housing including a support section (14) with an inner and outer wall connected by a portion (see FIG. 1); in which the walls of the housing are substantially the same width;
PNG
media_image2.png
518
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a double wall in the motor frame of Jacobsen, or substitute the frame of Tsukamoto for the frame of Jacobsen, in order to provide a reinforced support structure for the motor rotor;
Jacobsen further teaches:
limitations from claim 12, wherein, the support section of the separation tube (14) has a radius, the separation tube further comprises an airgap section, the airgap section has a radius, and the radius of the airgap section is larger than the radius of the support section (see annotated FIG. 1 below);
PNG
media_image5.png
688
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US PGPub No. 2015/0303761) in view of JP 2006115612 (herein Tsukamoto) as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Jensen et al (US Patent No. 4,773,822).
Jacobsen teaches a shaft (10) mounted in the tube (14), while there are components between the shaft and tube Jacobsen does not explicitly teach a bearing;
Jensen teaches a pump (1; FIG. 1) including a motor (3) with a rotor (9) mounted on a shaft (4); the shaft (4) supported for rotation by a bearing (15) disposed in a tube (see housing in FIG. 1 about rotor 9);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a bearing in the pump of Jacobsen, as taught by Jensen, as is commonly known in the art to rotatably support the shaft with minimal friction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under Chien and Jacobsen have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of JP 2006115612 (herein Tsukamoto), which teaches a double walled support section for a pump.
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 CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746