Ew 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
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0328413) in view of Itadani (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0003187) and Kim (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0007004).
As to claim 2, Moreno et al. discloses an electric liquid pump 10 (FIG.’S 1-10, Abstract) comprising:
an electric motor 24 (FIG. 4, para. 0034) including a motor rotor 28 Id., that has a shaft 26 and a magnet portion (Id., permanent magnet rotor 28 forming recited magnet portion) integrated with one axial end of the shaft 26, and a stator 30 Id., that is disposed radially outside the magnet portion 28 (as shown) and rotates the motor rotor 28;
a liquid pump 42 (para. 0035, formed in part by pumping ring 42 and associated elements) including an inner rotor 46 that has an external tooth 54 (FIG. 6, para. 0035) and is integrated with an other axial end of the shaft 26 (as shown), and an outer rotor 48 Id., that has an internal tooth 56 Id., meshing with the external tooth 54 and forms, together with the inner rotor 46, a gap volume portion 58 Id., into which a liquid is suctioned from a suction passage 20 (para. 0033) and from which the liquid is discharged toward a discharge passage 22; and
a case 95 having a box shape (FIG. 2, showing box or square shape profile) and accommodating the liquid pump 42 and the shaft 26.
Moreno is silent as to the shaft is integrally formed with a sleeve being the one axial end and having a large diameter, and a general shaft portion being a remaining axial portion of the shaft and having a smaller diameter than the sleeve, in which the sleeve and the general shaft portion are made of a same material, and the magnet portion is integrated with the sleeve. To this point, Itadani teaches a pump 3 having a similar configuration including a shaft 2 with a larger diameter sleeve 2a at one end and a smaller diameter portion 2 at the other (FIG. 1, para. 0045) formed integrally of one material (note cross-hatching indicated same material). The shaft supports magnet 15 on its outer diameter (as shown). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the shaft/rotor of Moreno with the shaft of Itadani__a shaft/rotor arrangement known to yield predictable rotational drive performance with expected results as shown by Itadani. The use of the shaft/rotor arrangement of Itadani in the combination of Moreno is considered a simple substitution of one known shaft/rotor arrangement for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). MPEP 2143(I)B.1
Moreno and Itadani are silent as to the magnet portion is made of a bonded magnet. In this regard, Kim teaches a pump wherein a magnet portion 191 is a bonded magnet (para. 0066). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the magnet portion as taught by Kim into Moreno and Itadani because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the magnet portion of Kim, for another, the magnet portion of Fujikawa and Itadani, to obtain predictable results, driving the pump, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. Upon modification, the bonded magnet portion is integrated with the shaft sleeve as claimed. MPEP 2141(III) B.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0328413) in view of Itadani (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0003187) and Kim (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0007004) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Suzuki et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0241917).
As to claim 5, the applied art is discussed above but is silent as to the shaft made of stainless steel. Stainless steel is commonly used in pumping components. To this point, Suzuki teaches an oil pump shaft 25 of stainless steel (para. 0020). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the shaft of stainless steel__a material known for its suitable intended use and desirable corrosion resistance properties for use in pump shafts as shown by Suzuki. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Moreno et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0328413) in view of Itadani (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0003187) and Kim (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0007004) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Hu et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 110319048).
As to claim 6, the applied art is discussed above but is silent as the bonded magnet contains SmFeN as magnetic powder and polyamide or polyphenylene sulfide as a binder. In this regard, Hu teaches using a permanent magnet material in pump rotors comprising SmFeN2 as magnetic powder and PPS (polyphenylene sulfide3) as a binder (Mach. Trans. ’MT’ Abstract, MT p. 2, inter alia). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the bonded magnetic material of SmFeN as magnetic powder and PPS (polyphenylene sulfide) as a binder__a known magnetic material composition for its suitability and intended use in pump rotors as shown by Hu. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0353168) in view of Itadani (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0003187) and Kim (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0007004).
As to claim 1, Fujikawa et al. discloses an electric liquid pump 10 (FIG.’S 1-6, Abstract) comprising:
an electric motor 30 (FIG. 1, para. 0015) including a motor rotor that has a shaft 15 (para. 0016) and a magnet portion 34 integrated with one axial end of the shaft 15 (as shown), and a stator 33 (para. 0019) that is disposed radially outside or inside the magnet portion and rotates the motor rotor 15, 34 Id.;
a liquid pump 14 (para. 0017) including an inner rotor 22 Id., that has an external tooth and is integrated with an other axial end of the shaft 15 (as shown), and an outer rotor 23 Id., that has an internal tooth meshing with the external tooth and forms, together with the inner rotor 22, a gap volume 24 portion into which a liquid is suctioned from a suction passage 26 (para. 0018) and from which the liquid is discharged toward a discharge passage 25 Id.;
a motor case 32 having a box shape and including therein a first accommodation chamber that accommodates the stator and one axial part of the motor rotor including the magnet portion, a second accommodation chamber that communicates with the first accommodation chamber and accommodates an other axial part of the motor rotor, and a partition wall that has a hole-shaped communication portion allowing the first accommodation chamber and the second accommodation chamber to communicate with each other and is provided between the first accommodation chamber and the second accommodation chamber (refer to an Annoated copy of Fujikawa FIG. 1 attached below, chambers and communication portions shown and indicated), in which the liquid circulates through the first accommodation chamber, the second accommodation chamber, and the hole-shaped communication portion (para. 0023, “[w]hen the pump 14 rotates and the hydraulic oil is sucked to the pump chamber 24, a part of the hydraulic oil in the pump chamber 24 circulates through a gap between the bearing bore 19 and the rotating shaft 15 and is introduced to the inside of the can 60”, circulating oil in the associated chambers through hole-shaped communication portion in the manner claimed); and
a body 12 (para. 0016) including a centering body portion inserted into the hole-shaped communication portion to be centered, a general body portion being continuous with the centering body portion and accommodated in the second accommodation chamber, and a bearing portion 19 (para. 0023) formed to penetrate the centering body portion and the general body portion and supporting an axial one portion of the shaft 15 at a position between the magnet portion 34 and the inner rotor 22 (Annotated Fujikawa FIG. 1, as shown and indicated).
Fujikawa is silent as to the shaft is integrally formed with a sleeve being the one axial end and having a large diameter, and a general shaft portion being a remaining axial portion of the shaft and having a smaller diameter than the sleeve, in which the sleeve and the general shaft portion are made of a same material, and the magnet portion is integrated with the sleeve. To this point, Itadani teaches a pump 3 having a similar configuration including a shaft 2 with a larger diameter sleeve 2a at one end and a smaller diameter portion 2 at the other (FIG. 1, para. 0045) formed integrally of one material (note cross-hatching indicated same material). The shaft supports magnet 15 on its outer diameter (as shown). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the shaft/rotor of Fuijikawa with the shaft of Itadani__a shaft/rotor arrangement known to yield predictable rotational drive performance with expected results as shown by Itadani. The use of the shaft/rotor arrangement of Itadani in the combination of Fujikawa is considered a simple substitution of one known shaft/rotor arrangement for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). MPEP 2143(I)B.4
Fujikawa and Itadani are further silent as to the magnet portion is made of a bonded magnet. In this regard, Kim teaches a pump wherein a magnet portion 191 is a bonded magnet (para. 0066). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the magnet portion as taught by Kim into Fujikawa and Itadani because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the magnet portion of Kim, for another, the magnet portion of Fujikawa and Itadani, to obtain predictable results, driving the pump, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. Upon modification, the bonded magnet portion is integrated with the shaft sleeve in the manner claimed. MPEP 2141(III) B.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fujikawa FIG. 1
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0353168) in view of Itadani (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0003187) and Kim (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0007004) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Suzuki et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0241917).
As to claim 3, the applied art is discussed above but is silent as to the shaft made of stainless steel. Stainless steel is well known for use in pumping components. To this point, Suzuki teaches an oil pump shaft 25 of stainless steel (para. 0020). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the shaft of stainless steel__a material known for its suitable intended use and desirable corrosion resistance properties for use in pump shafts as shown by Suzuki. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0353168) in view of Itadani (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0003187) and Kim (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0007004) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hu et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 110319048).
As to claim 4, the applied art is discussed above but is silent as the bonded magnet contains SmFeN as magnetic powder and polyamide or polyphenylene sulfide as a binder. In this regard, Hu teaches using a permanent magnet material in pump rotors comprising SmFeN5 as magnetic powder and PPS (polyphenylene sulfide6) as a binder (Mach. Trans. ’MT’ Abstract, MT p. 2, inter alia). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the bonded magnetic material of SmFeN as magnetic powder and PPS (polyphenylene sulfide) as a binder__a known magnetic material composition for its suitability and intended use in pump rotors as shown by Hu. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
2 SmFeN (Samarium-Iron-Nitrogen) refers to a class of high-performance, cost-effective permanent magnet materials, particularly the \(Sm_{2}Fe_{17}N_{x}\) compound, offering superior thermal stability, corrosion resistance, and magnetic properties compared to traditional magnets like NdFeB, though achieving fully dense forms remains challenging, with current applications focusing on injection-bonded or flexible magnets using fine SmFeN powder mixed with binders. .
3 PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide) material is a high-performance thermoplastic known for exceptional resistance to heat, chemicals (acids, bases, solvents), and moisture, maintaining strength and dimensional stability in extreme conditions. Its structure provides inherent flame retardancy and excellent electrical insulation, making it ideal for automotive, electronics, and industrial parts needing durability in harsh environments.
4 Footnote 1, supra.
5 Footnote 2, supra.
6 Footnote 3, supra.