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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgement is hereby made to the Preliminary Amendment filed 9 April 2025. Claim 1-13 are pending in the application. Claims 7-9 have been amended. Claims 10-13 are new.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamane et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0140805).
Regarding claim 1, Yamane et al. discloses a pressure source unit (FIG.’s 1-7, Title/Abstract, Electric Oil Pump) comprising:
a hydraulic pump (FIG. 1 & 6, para. 0021, formed by rotor 21 and pump housing A) including a rotating shaft 22 Id., and a pump casing A, 9 (formed by pump housing A and element 9);
an electric motor B, 24 (para. 0033, motor details not depicted, however, an electric oil pump clearly indicates that an electric motor 24) including an output shaft 26 Id., and a motor casing B, the output shaft 26 being coupled to the rotating shaft 22 by a coupling structure 23 (para. 0034, Oldham coupling); and
a housing A3, 13 (FIG. 6, para. 0028, formed by housing A3 and base main unit 13) that accommodates therein the rotating shaft 22, the output shaft 26, and the coupling structure 23 (shown best in FIG. 1), the housing A3, 13 connecting between the pump casing A, 9 and the motor casing B (shown),
wherein hydraulic oil is stored in the pump casing A, 9, and the hydraulic oil is supplied into the housing (para. 0027, “[t]he main oil hole section 11 serves to receive the leaked oil from the drain hole section 7 of the cover section A1 and feed the leaked oil to the second linking channel 12 … and this second linking channel 12 transfers the oil that flowed in from the annular drain groove 5 of the cover section A1 and the first linking channel 8 to a coupling chamber 20 formed in the base section A3”, oil is supplied to lubricate coupling 23 via channels 12, 19 and chambers 17, 20 supplying oil from the pump casing to the housing).
Re. claim 2, Yamane further discloses the housing A3, 13 includes a drain port 18 (para. 0030, discharge channel).
Re. claim 7, Yamane further discloses the coupling structure 23 includes toothed surfaces 22a/b, 23a/b (FIG. 5, para. 0034, Oldham coupling 23 with sections 22a/b,23a/b that are toothed) that mesh with each other (as shown and described).
Re. claim 8, Yamane further discloses the pump casing A, 9 includes a front wall (formed as edge of body main unit 9) that is penetrated by the rotating shaft 22 (shown, according to broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and there is no oil seal between the front wall and the rotating shaft 22 (no seal evidently disclosed).
Re. claim 11, Yamane further discloses the coupling structure 23 includes toothed surfaces 22a/b, 23a/b (FIG. 5, para. 0034, Oldham coupling 23 with sections 22a/b,23a/b that are toothed) that mesh with each other (as shown and described).
Re. claim 12, Yamane further discloses the pump casing A, 9 includes a front wall (formed as edge of body main unit 9) that is penetrated by the rotating shaft 22 (shown, according to broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and there is no oil seal between the front wall and the rotating shaft 22 (no seal evidently disclosed).
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0140805) in view of Mibu et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0217334).
As to claim 3, Yamane further discloses an axial direction of the rotating shaft 22 of the hydraulic pump and the output shaft 26 of the electric motor 24 extends horizontally (FIG. 1, as depicted), and a lower portion of the housing A3, 13 includes the drain port 18 (as shown). Yamane is silent as to and an upper portion of the housing A3, 13 includes an air vent port. To this point, Mibu teaches a hydraulic drive unit having an air vent port 12d arranged on an upper portion of housing 31 (FIG. 4, para. 0033). 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 modify Yamane with an air vent port arranged as claimed in order to allow accumulated air and oil to be discharged as taught by Mibu, Id.
As to claims 4 and 101, Yamane is discussed above but is silent as to an axial direction of the rotating shaft of the hydraulic pump and the output shaft of the electric motor extends vertically with the hydraulic pump is positioned below the electric motor. Mibu teaches a hydraulic drive system 10 with a pump 12 having its rotating shaft 32 arranged vertically with the pump 12 positioned below the motor 11 (FIG.’s 2-4, para. 0026 & 0045, inter alia). 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 arrange the rotating shaft vertically so that the pump is below the motor in order to mounting the pump and motor in a frame supported vertically depending upon installation form factor requirements as suggested by Mibu (para. 0045).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0140805) in view of Sagawa et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,011,377).
As to claims 9 and 132, Yamane is discussed above but is silent as to the hydraulic pump includes a cylinder block fixed to the rotating shaft, cylinder bores, pistons and shoes with oil passages configured in the manner claimed.3 To this point, Sagawa teaches a hydraulic pump motor unit including a cylinder block 2 (FIG. 1, col. 3, ll. 45-60) fixed to the rotating shaft and including cylinder bores 3 Id., pistons 4 Id., that are received in the respective cylinder bores 3; and shoes 6 (col. 3, ln. 61) that are mounted to heads of the respective pistons 4 (as shown), the pistons 4 and the shoes 6 include oil passages 16, 17 (col. 4, ll. 45-55), through which the hydraulic oil is supplied from the cylinder bores 3 to distal end surfaces of the respective shoes 6 (as shown and described), and the hydraulic oil that has been supplied to the distal end surfaces of the respective shoes lubricates the shoes 6, and is then stored in the pump casing (areas surrounding pistons 3 and shoes 6). 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 hydraulic pump of Yamane with the hydraulic pump of Sagawa__a pump known to provide predictable hydraulic pumping performance with expected results such as variable displacement capability as demonstrated by Sagawa. The use of the hydraulic pump of Sagawa in the combination of Yamane is considered a simple substitution of one known pump unit 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
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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:
With respect to claim 5, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the pressure source unit of claim 1 with the limitations of claim 4 further wherein an upper portion of the housing includes an air vent port, and the housing includes a tubular wall that includes an end surface located at a position higher than a position of the air vent port, the tubular wall surrounding the output shaft.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5.
The claimed air vent port on the tubular wall is shown in FIG.3 of the instant invention. The prior art simply does not contemplate this arrangement in the context of the recited pump and motor combination. In the Examiner’s opinion, modifying the applied art in this manner is not foreseeable without benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention.
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 Claims 4 and 10 are identical except for their dependencies.
2 Claims 9 and 13 are identical except for their dependencies.
3 Limitations paraphrased for brevity.
4 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.