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 Objections
Claims 3 & 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 2-4 should read “with the third opening opposed to any one of a plurality of tooth spaces of the first gear, the second opening is opposed to a part of the rotation trajectory area different from a part in which the one of the plurality of tooth spaces is opposed to the third opening.”
Claim 5, lines 2-4 should read “with the second opening opposed to any one of a plurality of tooth spaces of the first gear, the one of the plurality of tooth spaces opposed to the second opening and the suction passage are partitioned by at least one of the teeth.”
Claim 6, line 3 should read “a first side plate configured to be opposed”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a rotation trajectory area being arranged on a rotation trajectory of teeth of the first gear in a rotation direction of the teeth of the first gear in order of the suction passage, the rotation trajectory area, the discharge passage, and the mesh area”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if (or how) the phrase “in order of the suction passage, the rotation trajectory area, the discharge passage, and the mesh area” further limits the previous phrasing “a rotation trajectory area being arranged on a rotation trajectory of teeth of the first gear in a rotation direction of the teeth of the first gear”. As far as the examiner understands, these two phrases define two different aspects of the invention, but are currently recited as linked together in a single limitation. It appears that the limitation as currently written might be missing some words, but the examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent here. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied interpreted this limitation as “a rotation trajectory area being arranged on a rotation trajectory of teeth of the first gear in a rotation direction of the teeth of the first gear, wherein the suction passage, the rotation trajectory area, the discharge passage, and the mesh area are formed sequentially in order”.
Claim 2, line 4 recites the limitation “a head of a rotation direction”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what arrangement is being defined by this language. In particular, it is not clear what marks a “head” of a direction, as currently recited. Applicant’s specification appears to simply repeat the same language, and thus, offers no additional clarity into its meaning. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted Claim 2 as requiring the third opening to be located closer to the discharge passage in the rotation direction than the second opening.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the teeth of the drive gear” and “the teeth of the driven gear" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the “teeth” recited in claim 4 include the “teeth” previously recited in Claim 1 or are introducing additional teeth altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied interpreted the “teeth” in Claim 4 as including the “teeth” previously recited in Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/152767 to Kanatani (attached herein with machine translation).
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-7, Kanatani discloses:
1. A gear pump or gear motor (10; Fig. 1; see also Abstract) comprising: a drive gear (20) and a driven gear (22) that mesh with each other (para. 14); and a side plate (28) arranged to be opposed to the drive gear and the driven gear (Figs. 1 & 7), one of the drive gear and the driven gear being a first gear (inherent), a suction passage (16) through which a fluid flows (para. 13), a discharge passage (18) through which a fluid having a higher pressure than the fluid flowing through the suction passage flows (para. 13), a mesh area in which the drive gear and the driven gear mesh with each other (clearly seen in Fig. 3; the area surrounding 46), and a rotation trajectory area (gear storage chamber 14) being arranged on a rotation trajectory of teeth (52, 54) of the first gear in a rotation direction of the teeth of the first gear (apparent in Fig. 2) in order of the suction passage, the rotation trajectory area, the discharge passage, and the mesh area (it is apparent in Fig. 2 that the suction passage, the rotation trajectory area, the discharge passage, and the mesh area are formed sequentially in order), and the side plate (28) including a first opening (64) opposed to the mesh area (Fig. 3), a second opening (66) opposed to the rotation trajectory area (Fig. 3), and a feed passage (30) communicating with the first opening and the second opening (Figs. 3 & 7; see also paras. 22-25)
In regards to Claim 2, the side plate further includes a third opening (76) opposed to the rotation trajectory area (Figs. 2 & 7) and arranged to be connected to the discharge passage (Fig. 2; paras. 29, 32), and the third opening is closer to a head of a rotation direction of the first gear than the second opening (it is apparent from Fig. 2 that the third opening 76 is located closer to the discharge passage in the rotation direction than the second opening).
In regards to Claim 3, with the third opening opposed to any one of tooth spaces of the first gear (as shown in Fig. 3), the second opening (66) is opposed to a part of the rotation trajectory area different from a part in which the one of tooth spaces is opposed to the third opening (this is apparent in Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 4, the mesh area includes a closed area (46) surrounded by the teeth of the drive gear and the teeth of the driven gear (Figs. 2-3), and with the first opening opposed to the closed area (as shown in Fig. 5), the second opening and the third opening are opposed to different tooth spaces of the first gear (this is apparent in Fig. 5).
In regards to Claim 5, with the second opening opposed to any one of tooth spaces of the first gear, the one of tooth spaces opposed to the second opening and the suction passage are partitioned by at least one of the teeth (this is apparent in Figs. 2 & 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose the gear pump or gear motor of claim 1, wherein the side plate includes a first side plate to be opposed to the first gear, and a second side plate configured to be fixed to the first side plate, an opposed surface of an outer surface of the first side plate opposed to the first gear includes the first opening and the second opening, and the feed passage includes a first passage section between the first side plate and the second side plate, a second passage section provided in the first side plate and communicating with the first passage section and the first opening, and a third passage section provided in the first side plate and communicating with the first passage section and the second opening, as recited in Claim 6.
The best available prior art, outside of Kanatani already applied above, is:
1. JPS54149002 to Teruyama
2. JP 2017/223122 to Tsuzuki
3. JP 2012077686 to Ishinaka
4. JP 2009030516 to Yokoi
5. US 4,311,444 to Shumate
6. US 4,239,468 to Smith
7. US 4,086,216 to Shumate
8. US 2,714,856 to Kane
While each of the above-noted references generally describe gear pumps similar to that claimed by Applicant, including the use of side plates on respective sides the drive/driven gears, none of the available prior art references disclose a first side plate to be opposed to the first gear, and a second side plate configured to be fixed to the first side plate, an opposed surface of an outer surface of the first side plate opposed to the first gear includes the first opening and the second opening, and the feed passage includes a first passage section between the first side plate and the second side plate, a second passage section provided in the first side plate and communicating with the first passage section and the first opening, and a third passage section provided in the first side plate and communicating with the first passage section and the second opening, as recited in Claim 6. Thus, none of these prior art references remedy the deficiencies in Kanatani. Applicant’s specification clearly depicts the arrangement of Claim 6 within Figure 4, and Applicant makes clear that with such a particular arrangement of side plates and corresponding feed passage structures, a rapid change in the pressure of the fluid in the tooth spaces can be reduced, which can reduce the vibration or noise generated in the gear pump or gear motor. Furthermore, Applicant states that damage to the components of the gear pump by cavitation can also be reduced. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious Applicant’s particular side plate arrangement recited in Claim 6. Claim 7 is objected to for similar reasons, via its dependency upon Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the Allowable Subject Matter section above, which details the most relevant prior art documents that are considered most pertinent to applicant's disclosure..
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
Prosecution Insights