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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the phrase "in particular" in lines 2 and 3 respectively, renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0302126 A1 to Ehrsam et al (Ehrsam), or alternatively by DE 102009047332 A1 to Sigrist et al. [Sigrist]. A machine translation of Sigrist was relied upon for the basis of this rejection.
In reference to claim 1, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose a hydraulic pump comprising a motor housing (8; Figs. 1-2)[2, 12; Fig. 1] and a stator module (4)[8], which is arranged within the motor housing wherein the stator module has a support (15)[15] which is received in a retaining portion of the motor housing, wherein at the retaining portion has first wall portions with a first wall thickness (central portion of 8; Fig. 2)[both right and left portions of 12] and second wall portions with a second wall thickness (right portion of 8; Fig. 2)[central portion of 12], wherein the second wall thickness is less than the first wall thickness (see Fig. 2)[see Fig. 1], wherein the second wall portions are connected materially to the support of the stator module by means of a welded joint (37; par. 0036)[par. 0020].
In reference to claim 2, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose a hydraulic pump according to claim 1, wherein the second wall portions are formed from a laser-transparent plastic, wherein the second wall portions are laser-welded to the support (par. 0036)[par. 0020].
In reference to claims 4 and 12, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose a hydraulic pump according to claims 1 and 2, wherein the retaining portion has at least four first wall portions and at least four second wall portions ([a “portion” is interpreted as any segment of the wall; any four segments of the wall, either axial or circumferential, can be selected and interpreted as a “portion”]).
In reference to claims 5 and 13, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose a hydraulic pump according to claims 1 and 2, wherein the first wall portions and the second wall portions are arranged on a common circumference (see Fig. 2; the portions of the wall share a same exterior circumference)[see Fig. 1; the portions of the wall share a same interior circumference].
In reference to claims 6 and 14, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose a hydraulic pump according to claims 1 and 2, wherein mutually adjacent second wall portions are each separated from one another in the circumferential direction by at least one first wall portion (see Fig. 2)[see Fig. 1].
In reference to claims 8 and 16, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose a hydraulic pump according to claims 1 and 2, wherein the second wall portions are welded to an axial end of the support which faces a pump module of the hydraulic pump (see Fig. 1)[see Fig. 2].
In reference to claims 9 and 17, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose a hydraulic pump according to claims 1 and 2, wherein at least some of the first wall portions are arranged at the same angular positions as connecting portions of a pump housing of the hydraulic pump at which a pump module of the hydraulic pump is secured ([the cross sections in the Figs. each show a single “angular position” and both wall portions can be seen]).
In reference to claims 10 and 18, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose a hydraulic pump according to claims 1 and 2, wherein the motor housing is formed in one piece with a pump housing of the hydraulic pump in which a pump module of the hydraulic pump is accommodated ([see Fig. 1]).
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) 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrsam, or alternatively, Sigrist.
In reference to claims 3, 7, 11 and 15, Ehrsam and Sigrist each disclose the hydraulic pump of claims 1 and 2, but fail to explicitly disclose the particular wall dimensions. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when designing the pump, the particular dimensions of the wall would depend on variables specific to the application, including but not limited to, size/power of the pump, housing material, material being pumped and available packaging space. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have either Ehrsam or Sigrist and selected the appropriate wall dimensions in the design of the device to meet the requirements of the application. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
In reference to claims 19 and 20, the claims are substantively identical to what is recited in claims 4 and 5. See rejection above; the same rationale applies.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: DE 102019214301 A1, CN 112524048 A and DE 102010029978 A1 each disclose pumps that anticipate at least claim 1 and may be relied upon in a subsequent Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MATTHIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5168. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am - 6pm Pacific Time.
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, Mark Laurenzi III can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/JONATHAN R MATTHIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 16 December 2025