DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 13 April 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and currently being examined.
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 6 – 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 6, the phrase “and the base portion is connected to other end of the” in Line 6 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase “and the base portion is connected to another end of the”.
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 5 – 8 and 16 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.
In Re Claim 5, this claim recites the limitation “the elastic sheet” three times in Lines 5, 7 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --the at least one elastic sheet-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 16, this claim recites the limitation “the elastic sheet” three times in Lines 5, 7 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --the at least one elastic sheet-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 6, this claim recites the limitation “the elastic sheet” in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --the at least one elastic sheet-- will be assumed instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nickel (WIPO document WO 2019166118 A1, Machine Translation Provided) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nickel in view of Irie (PG Pub US 20170321704 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 3 of Nickel
In Re Claim 1, the Figure 3 embodiment of Nickel discloses an electric pump (title), comprising: a first rotor assembly (7); an electric control assembly (13 and unlabeled pin; see annotated figure above); and a second rotor assembly (2), wherein the electric pump is provided with a first chamber (inside 14) and a second chamber (5, 9 – i.e. interior space of 10), at least a part of the second rotor assembly (2) is located in the first chamber (inside 14), the first rotor assembly (7) is located in the second chamber (5, 9 – i.e. interior space of 10), and the first rotor assembly (7) is drivingly connected to the second rotor assembly (2); and the electric control assembly comprises a control assembly (13) and a pin (see annotated figure above), at least a part of the pin (see annotated figure above) and at least a part of the control assembly (13) are located in the first chamber (inside 14), the pin (see annotated figure above) is electrically connected to the control assembly (13) (Figure 3 clearly shows that it makes contact), and the first chamber (inside 14) is in communication (via 11) with the second chamber (5, 9 – i.e. interior space of 10) (paragraphs [0021],[0022],[0025],[0026],[0027]; Figure 3).
As discussed above, the examiner first contends that Nickel discloses a pin electrically connected to the control assembly (in view of MPEP 2125, Section I), but alternatively if this is not clear to applicant:
However, Figure 5 of Irie discloses a pin (161) electrically connected to control assembly (145), the pin (161) is part of an external connection portion (162) where an external connector is connected for feeding electricity to the control assembly (paragraphs [0094],[0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to connect the labeled pin and external connection portion in the above annotated figure of Nickel to an external connector as taught by Irie for the purpose of feeding electricity to the control assembly (paragraph [0094] of Irie), thus making an electrical connection between the control assembly and the annotated pin of Nickel.
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Nickel further discloses a bottom wall (wall of body 5 that has the passage 11), wherein the first rotor assembly (7) is supported by the bottom wall (via bearing 4) (paragraph [0021]; Figure 3); and the electric pump comprises a first passage (11) that passes through the bottom wall (wall of body 5 that has the passage 11),and the first passage (11) is in communication with the first chamber (inside 14) and the second chamber (5, 9 – i.e. interior space of 10)(paragraph [0027]; Figure 3).
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(s) 2 – 8, 10 – 12 and 16 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel (WIPO document WO 2019166118 A1, Machine Translation Provided) in view of Irie (PG Pub US 20170321704 A1) and further in view of Lee (Korean Patent KR 20220157178 A, Machine Translation provided).
In Re Claim 2, Nickel and Irie disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose an electrical connector.
However, Lee discloses that the control assembly (420, 540) comprises a circuit board (420) and an electrical connector (540) that are fixedly and electrically connected to each other; and the electrical connector (540) comprises a conductive portion (542), at least a part of the pin (520) is in contact with the conductive portion (542), and at least a part of the conductive portion (542) extends out of the circuit board (420; Figure 4) and is located in the first chamber (460; Figure 1) (paragraphs [0042]-[0059]; Figures 1, 3, 4, 6, 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the electrical connector as taught by Lee on to the circuit board of Nickel / Irie for the purpose providing a connection between the pin and the circuit board that simplifies the assembly process (paragraph [0027] of Lee).
PNG
media_image2.png
646
985
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 6 of Lee
In Re Claims 3 and 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 2, and Lee further discloses that the pin (520) comprises a first portion (see annotated figure above) that is located in the first chamber (460) and is electrically connected to the control assembly (420, 540); and the first portion comprises a first sub-portion (see annotated figure above) and a second sub-portion (see annotated figure above) that are connected to each other, the first sub-portion (see annotated figure above) passes through the circuit board (420) as best seen in Figure 3, and at least a part of the second sub-portion (see annotated figure above) is in contact with the conductive portion (542); wherein the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the pin (520) comprises a third sub-portion (see annotated figure above) that is located in the first chamber (460), and the third sub-portion extends from the second sub-portion away from the circuit board (420) as best seen in Figure 4 (paragraphs [0042]-[0059]; Figures 1, 3, 4, 6, 7).
PNG
media_image3.png
650
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 of Lee
In Re Claims 5 and 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3 and 4 respectively, and Lee further discloses that the electrical connector (540) comprises a body portion (544, 546), and the body portion (544, 546) passes through the circuit board (420) and is located in the first chamber (460); the conductive portion (542) comprises at least one elastic sheet (paragraph [0052]; there are six elastic sheets depicted) that is located in the first chamber (460), and an end of the at least one elastic sheet is connected to the body portion (at 544); a part of the at least one elastic sheet (see annotated figure above) extends towards a central axis of the electrical connector (540) in an inclined manner, and another part of the at least one elastic sheet (see annotated figure above) extends away from the central axis of the electrical connector (540) in an inclined manner; and at least a part of the second sub-portion (see claim 3 discussion above) is in contact with the elastic sheet (paragraph [0052]) (paragraphs [0042]-[0059]; Figures 1, 3, 4, 6, 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
676
784
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 4 of Lee
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and Lee further discloses that the body portion (544, 546) comprises a base portion (544) and at least one connection portion (546) that are connected to each other, and the connection portion (546) is fixedly connected to the circuit board (420) (paragraph [0055]); and at least a part (see annotated figure above) of the base portion (544) extends out of the circuit board (420), and the base portion (544) is connected to another end of the at least one elastic sheet (each of the six sheets 542) (paragraphs [0042]-[0059]; Figures 1, 3, 4, 6, 7).
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 6, and Lee further discloses that the circuit board (420) comprises a first face (Figure 5) and a second face (Figure 4) that are opposite to each other, the connection portion (546) is located on the first face of the circuit board (see Figure 5), one end of the base portion (544) is connected to the connection portion (546) as seen in Figure 7, and the other end (end of the shaded area in Figure 4 discussed in Claim 6) of the base portion (544) passes through the circuit board (420) and extends away from the second face as best seen in Figure 4 annotated above (paragraphs [0042]-[0059]; Figures 1, 3, 4, 6, 7).
In Re Claims 8 and 17, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claims 6 and 7 respectively, and Lee further discloses that the base portion (544) comprises an insertion hole (for pin 520), and at least a part of the insertion hole (for pin 520) is located in the circuit board (420); and the insertion hole is in communication with the first chamber (460) (because it opens into the first chamber), a part of the first sub-portion (see annotated Figure 6 discussed in Claims 3 and 4) is located in the insertion hole (for pin 520), and the first sub-portion is spaced apart from the base portion (544) (because the insertion hole has a larger diameter than the pin as best seen in Figure 6) (paragraphs [0042]-[0059]; Figures 1, 3, 4, 6, 7).
In Re Claims 10, 11 and 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claims 5, 6 and 8 respectively, and Nickel further discloses a bottom wall (wall of body 5 that has the passage 11), wherein the first rotor assembly (7) is supported by the bottom wall (via bearing 4) (paragraph [0021]; Figure 3); and the electric pump comprises a first passage (11) that passes through the bottom wall (wall of body 5 that has the passage 11),and the first passage (11) is in communication with the first chamber (inside 14) and the second chamber (5, 9 – i.e. interior space of 10)(paragraph [0027]; Figure 3).
In Re Claims 18 and 19, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claims 2 and 7 respectively, and Nickel further discloses a bottom wall (wall of body 5 that has the passage 11), wherein the first rotor assembly (7) is supported by the bottom wall (via bearing 4) (paragraph [0021]; Figure 3); and the electric pump comprises a first passage (11) that passes through the bottom wall (wall of body 5 that has the passage 11),and the first passage (11) is in communication with the first chamber (inside 14) and the second chamber (5, 9 – i.e. interior space of 10)(paragraph [0027]; Figure 3).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel (WIPO document WO 2019166118 A1, Machine Translation Provided) in view of Irie (PG Pub US 20170321704 A1) and further in view of Zhang (European Patent EP 3073119 A1).
In Re Claim 13, Nickel and Irie disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and Nickel also discloses a pump shaft (3), wherein the pump shaft (3) is drivingly connected to the first rotor assembly (7) and the second rotor assembly (2), but they do not disclose that the pump shaft comprises a second passage that passes from a first end face to a second end face of the pump shaft.
However, Zhang discloses a pump shaft (8), wherein the pump shaft (8) is drivingly connected to the first rotor assembly (72) and the second rotor assembly (6), and the pump shaft (8) comprises a second passage (801/92) that passes from a first end face to a second end face of the pump shaft (8); and during operation of the electric pump, a pressure of a working medium at an inlet of the first passage (91) is higher than a pressure of the working medium at an outlet of the second passage (801/92) (paragraphs [0018],[0024]; Figure 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
600
1222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Nickel and Figure 11 of Zhang
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the pump shaft of Nickel / Irie by adding a central second passage inside the shaft as taught by Zhang (see annotated figure above that shows the modification) for the purpose of enhancing the cooling effect by providing an extra cooling passage inside the shaft as taught by Zhang.
Claim(s) 14, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel (WIPO document WO 2019166118 A1, Machine Translation Provided) in view of Irie (PG Pub US 20170321704 A1) and in view of Lee (Korean Patent KR 20220157178 A, Machine Translation provided) and further in view of Zhang (European Patent EP 3073119 A1).
In Re Claims 14, 15, and 20 Nickel, Irie and Lee disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, 11 and 12 respectively, and Nickel also discloses a pump shaft (3), wherein the pump shaft (3) is drivingly connected to the first rotor assembly (7) and the second rotor assembly (2), but they do not disclose that the pump shaft comprises a second passage that passes from a first end face to a second end face of the pump shaft.
However, Zhang discloses a pump shaft (8), wherein the pump shaft (8) is drivingly connected to the first rotor assembly (72) and the second rotor assembly (6), and the pump shaft (8) comprises a second passage (801/92) that passes from a first end face to a second end face of the pump shaft (8); and during operation of the electric pump, a pressure of a working medium at an inlet of the first passage (91) is higher than a pressure of the working medium at an outlet of the second passage (801/92) (paragraphs [0018],[0024]; Figure 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
600
1222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Nickel and Figure 11 of Zhang
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the pump shaft of Nickel / Irie / Lee by adding a central second passage inside the shaft as taught by Zhang (see annotated figure above that shows the modification) for the purpose of enhancing the cooling effect by providing an extra cooling passage inside the shaft as taught by Zhang.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights