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 Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on March 3rd, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 20th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Consequently, Claims 1-20 remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 were previously objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, rendering the objections moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5, 8-12, & 18-20 were 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. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, rendering the rejections moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “Regarding Feldkamp, the Office Action asserts that housing cover 26 corresponds to the claimed electronics housing and the housing body 24 corresponds to the claimed pump housing. However, as shown in Figures 1-3 of Feldkamp, the housing cover 26 and the housing body 24 are not separate and distinct from each other, and the housing body 24 is not mounted on an exterior surface of the housing cover 26 in an axial direction parallel to a rotation axis of the electric motor of one of the first and second hydraulic pumps. Indeed, Feldkamp at paragraph [0020] describes that the stator 10, 12, the rotor 14, 16, and the control unit 18, 20 are all contained within a single common pump housing 22 consisting of the housing cover 26 and the housing body 24.”, the examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant’s assertion that “the housing body 24 is not mounted on an exterior surface of the housing cover 26 in an axial direction parallel to a rotation axis of the electric motor of one of the first and second hydraulic pumps” is simply incorrect. Figures 1-2 clearly show how the cover 26 is a distinct and separate component from the housing body 24, and Figure 3 shows how they are attached to one another at exterior surfaces thereof in an axial direction that is parallel to a rotation axis of motor shafts 14 & 16. Applicant’s citation of paragraph [0020] does nothing to support Applicant’s assertions because paragraph [0020] merely states that the housing body 24 and cover 26 make up the common pump housing 22 (i.e. form a housing assembly). This certainly does not override the fact that cover 26 is a separate and distinct component from housing body 24. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “Regarding Rosinski, the Office Action asserts that the housing body 31 corresponds to the claimed electronics housing and the body portion 32 corresponds to the claimed pump housing. However, as shown in Figures 2-3 of Rosinski, the housing body 31 and the body portion 32 are not separate and distinct from each other, and the body portion 32 is not mounted on an exterior surface of the housing body 31 in an axial direction parallel to a rotation axis of the electric motor of one of the first and second hydraulic pumps”, the examiner must respectfully disagree for reasons similar to those noted above. Applicant’s assertion that “the housing body 31 and the body portion 32 are not separate and distinct from each other, and the body portion 32 is not mounted on an exterior surface of the housing body 31 in an axial direction parallel to a rotation axis of the electric motor of one of the first and second hydraulic pumps” is once again incorrect. Figure 2 clearly shows how housing body 31 is a distinct and separate component from the body portion 33, and Figure 3 shows how they are attached to one another at exterior surfaces thereof in an axial direction that is parallel to a rotation axis of motor shafts 44 & 45. Rosinski makes clear that the two components 31 & 33 make up the common pump housing 30 (i.e. form a housing assembly). This certainly does not override the fact that housing body 31 is a separate and distinct component from body portion 33. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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) 1-6, 11, 14-16, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102021101096 to Feldkamp (attached to previous office action).
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-3, Feldkamp discloses:
A pump module (2; Fig. 1) for a drive unit of a motor vehicle (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit that apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a housing module (22) having an electronics housing (26) and a pump housing (24), a circuit board (34) which is received in the electronics housing (as shown in Fig. 3) and is equipped with electronic components (electronic components are apparent in Figs. 2-3), a connector plug (28, 48) which is provided on the electronics housing (Figs. 1-3) and has electrical contacts (48) which are electrically connected to conductors of the circuit board (Fig. 3; paras. 34-35), and first and second hydraulic pumps (4, 6) which are mounted in the pump housing (Fig. 3) and each of the first and second hydraulic pumps the has an electric motor (10/14, 12/16; Figs. 1-3), wherein the pump housing and the electronics housing are separate and distinct from each other, and the pump housing is mounted on an exterior surface of the electronics housing in an axial direction parallel to a rotation axis of the electric motor of one of the first and second hydraulic pumps (Figs. 1-2 show how the cover 26 is a distinct and separate component from the housing body 24, and Figure 3 shows how the two components are attached/assembled to one another at respective exterior surfaces thereof in an axial direction that is parallel to a rotation axis of the motor shafts 14 & 16).
In regards to Claim 2, the electric motors each have a rotor (14, 16) coupled to one of the first and second hydraulic pumps (as shown in Fig. 3) and a stator (10, 12) received in the pump housing (Figs. 1-3), wherein the stators are at least partially exposed on an outside of the housing module (Figs. 1-3 show that the stators 10 & 12 each have an exterior flange (lead line 12 in Fig. 1) that is mounted/exposed to an outside of the housing module 24; furthermore, the term “exposed” is broad enough to encompass the stators simply being thermally exposed to the outside of the housing module 24 via conduction).
In regards to Claim 3, the stators are placed in trough-like portions of the electronics housing (i.e. the stators 10 & 12 are both placed within the figure-8 shaped recesses/troughs of the electronics housing 26; seen best in Figs. 1 & 3).
In regards to Claims 4 & 14, the stators are at least partially inserted into the pump housing (this is apparent in Fig. 3).
In regards to Claims 5 & 15, the stators are fixed in the axial direction between the electronics housing and the first and second hydraulic pumps (apparent in Figs. 1-3); wherein the first and second hydraulic pumps are bolted to the pump housing (paras. 33 & 37 disclose screwing the pump housing portions together, thereby bolting/screwing the pumps into the housing, as claimed; Figs. 1-2 also depict screw holes in the stators 10/12 and pump housing 24 that would further bolt the pumps therein).
In regards to Claims 6 & 16, the connector plug (28, 48) has a collar (28) which is provided and configured to extend through an opening of an oil sump and seal (collar 28 is clearly shown projecting outwardly from electronics housing 26 in Figs. 2-3, and thus, the collar 28 is clearly structurally capable of extending through/sealing an opening of an oil sump; the Examiner notes that Feldkamp is specifically designed to pump coolant in a vehicle, which would implicitly have an oil sump).
In regards to Claims 11 & 20, the circuit board (34) is electrically divided into two portions (18, 20) which are separate from one another (Figs. 1-2; para. 23). The remainders of Claims 11 and 20 are made merely optional, and thus, not further limiting.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, & 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2014143475 to Rosinski (attached to previous office action).
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 2-4, Rosinski discloses:
A pump module (30; Fig. 2) for a drive unit of a motor vehicle (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit that apparatus claim in any patentable sense; see also para. 1), comprising: a housing module (31-33) having an electronics housing (31) and a pump housing (32, 33), a circuit board (46) which is received in the electronics housing (as shown in Fig. 3) and is equipped with electronic components (electronic components are apparent in Figs. 2-3), a connector plug (47, 48) which is provided on the electronics housing (Figs. 1-3) and has electrical contacts (48; para. 15; Figs. 2 & 4) which are electrically connected to conductors (“sub-circuits”; para. 15) of the circuit board (para. 15), and first and second hydraulic pumps (36, 37) which are mounted in the pump housing (Figs. 2-3) and each of the first and second hydraulic pumps has an electric motor (42/44 & 43/45; Fig. 2), wherein the pump housing and the electronics housing are separate and distinct from each other, and the pump housing is mounted on an exterior surface of the electronics housing in an axial direction parallel to a rotation axis of the electric motor of one of the first and second hydraulic pumps (Figure 2 clearly shows how housing body 31 is a distinct and separate component from the body portion 33, and Figure 3 shows how they are attached to one another at respective exterior surfaces thereof in an axial direction that is parallel to a rotation axis of motor shafts 44 & 45).
In regards to Claims 5 & 15, stators (42, 43) are fixed in the axial direction between the electronics housing and the first and second hydraulic pumps (apparent in Fig. 3); wherein the first and second hydraulic pumps are bolted to the pump housing (para. 13 and Figs. 2-3 disclose bolting the pump housing portions together, thereby bolting the pumps into the housing, as claimed).
In regards to Claims 6 & 16, the connector plug (47, 48) has a collar (47) which is provided and configured to extend through an opening of an oil sump and seal (collar 47 is clearly shown projecting outwardly from electronics housing 31 in Figs. 2 & 4, and thus, the collar 47 is clearly structurally capable of extending through/sealing an opening of an oil sump; the Examiner notes that Rosinski is specifically designed to pump coolant in a vehicle, which would implicitly have an oil sump).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 13, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldkamp (applied above) in view of US 20220163035 to Krause et al.
In regards to Claims 7, 13, & 17, Feldkamp discloses the pump module according to claims 1 & 2, but does not further disclose 1) a plug-in direction of the connector plug runs parallel to an extent plane of the circuit board (Feldkamp discloses a plug-in direction that is perpendicular to a plane of the circuit board) or 2) a potting compound is provided so that the electronic components are encapsulated fluid-tightly in the electronics housing (Feldkamp is silent to the use of potting).
However, providing a connector plug as claimed, in addition to using PCB potting material, as claimed, is vastly well known in the art of pumps, shown by Krause et al. (Krause). In particular, Krause discloses another motor-driven pump (Fig. 2) in which a motor (22, 24) drives a gear pump (18, 20) via a printed circuit board (44) and associated connector plug (46) in order to pump coolant in a vehicle application, and goes on to specifically disclose that 1) a plug-in direction of the connector plug (46) runs parallel to an extent plane of the circuit board (44) (apparent in Fig. 2) and 2) a potting compound is provided so that the electronic components are encapsulated fluid-tightly in the electronics housing (paras. 19, 62). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a hydraulic pump having a reduced axial length and improved heat dissipation at the circuit board, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Krause in combination with those seen in Feldkamp in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Feldkamp’s electronics housing 26 with the connector plug design and potting material of Krause in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a dual hydraulic pump that provides improved heat dissipation from the circuit board 34 while reducing the overall axial length of the dual pump assembly.
Claim(s) 8-9 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosinski (applied above) in view of JP 20023/027912 to Suzumori (attached herein with machine translation).
In regards to Claim 8, Rosinski discloses that the intake openings (38, 39) of both of the first and second pumps are directed toward the same side as the connector plug (apparent in Figs. 2-4). However, Rosinski does not further disclose that that the first hydraulic pump is a vane pump and the second hydraulic pump is a gear pump, as claimed.
However, Suzomori discloses another dual pump assembly (Figs. 1 & 5) for use in a vehicle application (paras. 1-2), wherein the first hydraulic pump (9) is a vane pump (para. 15) and the second hydraulic pump (2) is a gear pump (para. 14), as claimed. Suzomori makes clear that through this combination of two pumps, a compound pump is provided which can ensure a desired oil discharge pressure and oil discharge amount in the low speed rotation range, and which can minimize energy loss in the medium or high speed rotation range (para. 5). Suzomori discloses that this is achieved by adjusting the discharge pressure from the vane-type pump that supplements the main gear pump (paras. 6-12). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a dual pump assembly providing improved flow/pressure adjustability, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Suzomori in combination with those seen in Rosinski in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the impeller pumps of Rosinski with a vane pump and gear pump (as taught in Suzomori) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a dual pump assembly with improved flow/pressure adjustability and regulation.
In regards to Claim 9, Rosinski discloses that one of the first and second hydraulic pumps has an extension housing (i.e. the volute extension extending from the housing 32/33, seen in Fig. 2) which has an intake opening (38) on its underside (see Fig. 3) and a delivery opening (40; Fig. 4) on a side facing away from the hydraulic pump (see the radially facing delivery openings in Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 12, Rosinski discloses that the electric motors of the first and second hydraulic pumps are identical (Fig. 3; paras. 13-15).
Claim(s) 10 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldkamp (applied above) in view of DE 102020100595 to Jaggle (attached herein with machine translation).
In regards to Claims 10 & 19, Feldkamp discloses the pump module according to claims 1 & 2, but does not further disclose that two connector plugs are provided (Feldkamp discloses only a single connector plug).
However, providing two connector plugs on a hydraulic pump is vastly well known in the art, as shown by Jaggle. In particular, Jaggle discloses another motor-driven hydraulic pump (10, 20; Figs. 1-3) in which an electric motor (20) drives a pump (10) to pump fluids in a vehicle application (para. 1), and specifically discloses an electronics housing (40) that houses a printed circuit board and two electrical connector plugs (43, 44) (Figs. 2, 7-11). Jaggle discloses that such an arrangement allows for one plug (43) to supply the motor with electricity (para. 86) while the other plug (44) allows for connection with a speed control unit (para. 87). In other words, Jaggle makes clear that providing distinct connection plugs allows for defined electrical signals to be carried to specific regions of the circuit board. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a hydraulic pump with dedicated control paths, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Jaggle in combination with those seen in Feldkamp in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Feldkamp’s single connector (28, 48) with the dual connectors (43, 44) taught in Jaggle in order to obtain predictable results; those results being distinct connection plugs that allow for defined electrical signals to be carried to specific regions of the circuit board.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 ABC