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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 8, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. The previous objections to claims 1-13 are withdrawn in light of the Applicant's amendment to claims 1-13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Publication 2011/0110794 to Mayleben.
Referring to claim 1, Mayleben discloses a hydraulic pump, comprising:
a housing (712a, 736); an electric drive motor (784) arranged in a wet chamber (portions of 712a and 736 which hold fluid), the wet chamber (portions of 712a and 736 which hold fluid) is in an area within the housing (712a, 736) of the hydraulic pump that is at least substantially filled with hydraulic fluid during operation;
at least one printed circuit board (742) which carries electronic or electrical components (such as 776) for controlling the drive motor (784), the at least one printed circuit board (742) is located in the wet chamber (sump), an evaluation unit (714) and at least two electrodes (738, 740) within the housing (712a, 736) which are located on the printed circuit board (742) in the wet chamber (portions of 712a and 736 which hold fluid) within the housing (712a, 736), wherein the evaluation unit (714) can detect a change in the capacitance of a capacitor formed by the two electrodes (738, 740) (Figures 24A-25E; paragraphs [0124]-[0128]).
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 2 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2011/0110794 to Mayleben in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2006/0005622 to Burdi.
Referring to claim 2, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but does not teach electrodes formed by conductor tracks. Burdi teaches a pump wherein
electrodes (50, 52, 70, 72) are formed by conductor tracks (49, 59) on a printed circuit board (30) (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0035]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben with the conductor tracks taught by Burdi because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the conductor tracks of Burdi, for another, the electrodes embodied in Figures 24A-25E, to obtain predictable results, sensing capacitance, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 8, Mayleben and Burdi teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but the Mayleben embodiment of Figures 24A-25E and Burdi do not teach the monitoring of the current consumption. In the embodiment of Figure 21, Mayleben teaches wherein:
the evaluation unit (510 in 714) has a signal input with which it can receive a signal that is indicative of the current consumption of the drive motor (paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben embodied in Figures 24A-25E, with the current consumption sensing taught by Mayleben in the embodiment of Figure 21, in order to provide a second sensor to detect when all fluid has been pumped from the wet chamber (paragraph [0109]).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2011/0110794 to Mayleben.
Referring to claim 3, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but the embodiment of Figures 24A-25E is silent as to the material of the electrodes. In the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2, Mayleben further teaches wherein:
the electrodes (738, 740) are formed by metallized surfaces on the surface of the printed circuit board (742) (Figures 1, 2, 24A-25E; paragraphs [0059], [0124]-[0128]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben embodied in Figures 24A-25E, with the metallized surfaces taught by Mayleben in the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the metal electrodes of the embodiment in Figures 1 and 2, for another, the electrodes embodied in Figures 24A-25E, to obtain predictable results, sensing capacitance, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the electrodes from metalized surfaces, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 4, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but the embodiment of Figures 24A-25E is silent as to the material of the electrodes. In the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2, Mayleben further teaches wherein:
the electrodes (30) are formed by capacitor plates that are separate from the printed circuit board (24) and mounted on it (Figures 24A-25E; paragraphs [0124]-[0128]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben embodied in Figures 24A-25E, with the capacitor plates taught by Mayleben in the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the capacitor plates of the embodiment in Figures 1 and 2, for another, the electrodes embodied in Figures 24A-25E, to obtain predictable results, sensing capacitance, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the electrodes from metalized surfaces, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 6, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but the embodiment of Figures 24A-25E does not teach the monitoring of the current consumption. In the embodiment of Figure 21, Mayleben teaches wherein:
the evaluation unit (510 in 714) has a signal input with which it can receive a signal that is indicative of the current consumption of the drive motor (paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben embodied in Figures 24A-25E, with the current consumption sensing taught by Mayleben in the embodiment of Figure 21, in order to provide a second sensor to detect when all fluid has been pumped from the wet chamber (paragraph [0109]).
Referring to claim 10, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but the embodiment of Figures 24A-25E does not teach the monitoring of the current consumption. In the embodiment of Figure 21, Mayleben teaches wherein:
the evaluation unit (510 in 714) has a signal input with which it can receive a signal that is indicative of the current consumption of the drive motor (paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben embodied in Figures 24A-25E, with the current consumption sensing taught by Mayleben in the embodiment of Figure 21, in order to provide a second sensor to detect when all fluid has been pumped from the wet chamber (paragraph [0109]).
Referring to claim 12, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 4, as detailed above, but the embodiment of Figures 24A-25E does not teach the monitoring of the current consumption. In the embodiment of Figure 21, Mayleben teaches wherein:
the evaluation unit (510 in 714) has a signal input with which it can receive a signal that is indicative of the current consumption of the drive motor (paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben embodied in Figures 24A-25E, with the current consumption sensing taught by Mayleben in the embodiment of Figure 21, in order to provide a second sensor to detect when all fluid has been pumped from the wet chamber (paragraph [0109]).
Claims 5, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2011/0110794 to Mayleben in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0085917 to Ward.
Referring to claim 5, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but does not teach the electrodes located in the upper half of the wet chamber. Ward teaches a pump wherein
electrodes (124, 126) are arranged in such a way that they are located in an upper half of a wet chamber (12) when a hydraulic pump is in an installation position (Fig. 17; paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben with the electrode locations taught by Ward, in order to accommodate physical requirements relating to the water level in the chamber (Ward paragraph [0052]).
Referring to claim 9, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but does not teach the electrodes located in the upper half of the wet chamber. Ward teaches a pump wherein
electrodes (124, 126) are arranged in such a way that they are located in an upper half of a wet chamber (12) when a hydraulic pump is in an installation position (Fig. 17; paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben with the electrode locations taught by Ward, in order to accommodate physical requirements relating to the water level in the chamber (Ward paragraph [0052]).
Referring to claim 11, Mayleben teaches a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 4, as detailed above, but does not teach the electrodes located in the upper half of the wet chamber. Ward teaches a pump wherein
electrodes (124, 126) are arranged in such a way that they are located in an upper half of a wet chamber (12) when a hydraulic pump is in an installation position (Fig. 17; paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben with the electrode locations taught by Ward, in order to accommodate physical requirements relating to the water level in the chamber (Ward paragraph [0052]).
Referring to claim 13, Mayleben and Ward teach a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 5, as detailed above, but the embodiment of Figures 24A-25E and Ward do not teach the monitoring of the current consumption. In the embodiment of Figure 21, Mayleben teaches wherein:
the evaluation unit (510 in 714) has a signal input with which it can receive a signal that is indicative of the current consumption of the drive motor (paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben embodied in Figures 24A-25E, with the current consumption sensing taught by Mayleben in the embodiment of Figure 21, in order to provide a second sensor to detect when all fluid has been pumped from the wet chamber (paragraph [0109]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2011/0110794 to Mayleben in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2006/0005622 to Burdi and U. S. Patent Publication 2011/0085917 to Ward.
Referring to claim 7, Mayleben and Burdi teach a hydraulic pump comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but does not teach the electrodes located in the upper half of the wet chamber. Ward teaches a pump wherein
electrodes (124, 126) are arranged in such a way that they are located in an upper half of a wet chamber (12) when a hydraulic pump is in an installation position (Fig. 17; paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pump taught by Mayleben with the electrode locations taught by Ward, in order to accommodate physical requirements relating to the water level in the chamber (Ward paragraph [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Mayleben does not teach the housing as now claimed, because the examiner previously mapped the wet chamber to the sump 26 of Mayleben. However, as detailed above, the Examiner no longer relies on sump 26 fior the claimed wet chamber. As detailed above, the cited wet chamber is inside the housing of Mayleben as claimed. The Applicant further argues that Mayleben utilizes an external sensor unit 714 in a separate housing attached to the pump and not in the pump housing as claimed. However, as detailed above, the pump housing 712a, 736 includes housing portion 736 and therefore the sensor unit 714 is in the pump housing as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights