DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on July 30, 2026. Applicant has amended Claims 16, 19, 22, and 35. Claims 16 – 35 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous claim objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
Previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
With regards to previous prior art rejections, applicant amended Claim 1 by changing the axial engagement length to diameter ratio from at least 0.7 to at least 0.8, arguing that Wang fails to teach this range and that Wang expressly teaches away from a ratio exceeding 0.8.
While examiner acknowledges that Wang teaches the ratio to be between 0.2 and 0.8 (see Paragraph 7 of Wang), examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion that a range of greater than 0.8 is nonobvious or that Wang teaches away from such a range.
First, as per MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, Wang discloses a range of 0.2 – 0.8, with a value of 0.8 being “close” to a value of greater than 0.8 (no guidance is given as to how much greater, so a value of, for example, 0.80000001 would meet the claim requirements and be “close” to 0.8).
Second, as per MPEP 2145, a product “does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use” and “a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed”. As per Wang, when the ratio “exceeds 0.8, the heat generated by the inner and outer rotors during meshing is greater and not easily carried away by the medium. The rotational speed is not easily too high. Due to the larger thickness, it is beneficial to have a larger outlet pressure” (Paragraph 11). None of these discourage investigation into a ratio exceeding 0.8. In fact, Wang admits that having a larger thickness allows for a larger outlet pressure. The noted drawbacks in exceeding a ratio of 0.8 are essentially preferences of Wang to minimize heat generation and to have a relatively high rotation speed. As per MPEP 2141, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. One of ordinary skill in the art would have gleaned that, if lower rotation speeds were acceptable, and heat generation could be dealt with, a ratio exceeding 0.8 may be desirable.
Third, Wang’s teachings, while not falling exactly within the claimed range, provide rationale for a result-effective variable analysis of the claimed ratio. This analysis was made in the previous rejection. Wang’s teachings show that varying the ratio between the outer diameter and the engagement length (i.e. the “thickness” of the rotor as per Wang) is known to yield a recognized result. As stated above, “[w]hen the thickness of the inner and outer rotors is large, i.e., the width-to-diameter ratio exceeds 0.8, the heat generated by the inner and outer rotors during meshing is greater and not easily carried away by the medium”, the rotational speed is limited, but the outlet pressure may be high. Conversely, “[w]hen the inner and outer rotor diameters are large, i.e. the width-to-diameter ratio is less than 0.2, the inner and outer rotors generate less heat during meshing, and the speed can be very high. Because the thickness is small, the load on the outlet is relatively small” (Paragraph 11). As per MPEP 2144.05, once a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Wang provides evidence of what happens when the ratio is varied across a range, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the ratio in order to yield a desired heat output, rotation speed, and outlet pressure. While applicant argued that Wang does not teach the exact ratio range recited, applicant made no arguments against the result-effective variable analysis.
As such, previous prior art rejections stand.
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 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 of this title, 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 16, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A).
With regards to Claim 16
Zhu discloses a toothed wheel pump for delivering a hydraulic fluid (Figures 1, 2), the toothed wheel pump comprising:
a pump housing (casing 1) featuring a housing inlet (inlets 1A, 1C) and a housing outlet (outlets 1B, 1D) for the fluid, and a first delivery chamber (volume between inner rotor 4 and outer rotor 3, see Paragraph 22) and second delivery chamber volume between other inner rotor 4 and other inner rotor 3, see Paragraph 22) which are connected to the housing inlet and the housing outlet (as shown in Figure 2 and Paragraph 22);
a drive shaft (shaft 7);
a first set of internal-axle rotors which are coupled to the drive shaft and can be rotated in the first delivery chamber and comprise an externally toothed first inner rotor (inner rotor 4) and an internally toothed first outer rotor (outer rotor 3) which are in a first toothed engagement in order to deliver the fluid from the housing inlet to the housing outlet (Figures 1, 2, Paragraph 22); and
a second set of internal-axle rotors which are coupled to the drive shaft and can be rotated in the second delivery chamber and comprise an externally toothed second inner rotor (other inner rotor 4) and an internally toothed second outer rotor (other outer rotor 3) which are in a second toothed engagement in order to deliver the fluid (Figures 1, 2, Paragraph 22).
Zhu does not explicitly disclose an axial engagement length of the first toothed engagement corresponds to at least 0.8 times the outer diameter of the first outer rotor and/or an axial engagement length of the second toothed engagement corresponds to at least 0.8 times the outer diameter of the second outer rotor. Wang (Figures 1, 2) teaches a gerotor/internal gear pump including an inner rotor (12) and an outer rotor (11), wherein the “ratio of the thickness of the outer rotor to its outer diameter is 0.2-0.8” (Paragraph 11). As per MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, a value of 0.8, as disclosed by Wang, is close to a value of greater than 0.8, as recited in the claim. Furthermore, as per Wang, “[w]hen the thickness of the inner and outer rotors is large, i.e., the width-to-diameter ratio exceeds 0.8, the heat generated by the inner and outer rotors during meshing is greater and not easily carried away by the medium”, the rotational speed is limited, but the outlet pressure may be high. Conversely, “[w]hen the inner and outer rotor diameters are large, i.e. the width-to-diameter ratio is less than 0.2, the inner and outer rotors generate less heat during meshing, and the speed can be very high. Because the thickness is small, the load on the outlet is relatively small”. As such, varying the ratio between the outer diameter and the engagement length (i.e. the “thickness” of the rotor as per Wang) is known to yield a recognized result. As per MPEP 2144.05, once a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Given the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhu by modifying the ratio between the rotor diameter and the engagement length, including to make the ratio at least 0.8 axial length to diameter, in order to optimize pump performance based on desired outlet pressure, pump speed, and heat generation. Finally, applicant has presented no evidence of criticality or unexpected results of the recited range.
With regards to Claim 17:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 teaches the axial engagement length of the first toothed engagement corresponds to at most 1.5 times or 1.3 times the outer diameter of the first outer rotor and/or the axial engagement length of the second toothed engagement corresponds to at most 1.5 times or 1.3 times the outer diameter of the second outer rotor (see Wang, thickness of outer rotor is 0.8 times the diameter of outer rotor – see also discussion of result-effective variable and obviousness to optimize).
With regards to Claim 19:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 teaches the second set of rotors is hydraulically connected in parallel with the first set of rotors in order to likewise deliver the fluid from the housing inlet to the housing outlet (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 22 of Zhu, showing a parallel arrangement).
With regards to Claim 21:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 teaches a front-facing side of the first delivery chamber axially faces opposite a front-facing side of the second delivery chamber (see Figures 1, 2 of Zhu) and the housing inlet is provided on a circumferential wall of the housing and surrounds a virtual straight line which extends between the mutually facing front-facing sides of the delivery chambers, orthogonally with respect to a rotational axis of the first set of rotors and/or second set of rotors (see Figure 2 of Zhu, inlet hole leading to inlet passages 1A, 1C, is located on a circumferential wall of the housing 1 and surrounds a virtual line, shown in Figure 2, extending between the axially facing sides of each rotor set, perpendicular to the axis of rotation), and/or the housing outlet is provided on a circumferential wall of the housing and surrounds a virtual straight line which extends between the mutually facing front-facing sides of the Patent Attorney delivery chambers, orthogonally with respect to a rotational axis of the first set of rotors and/or second set of rotors (see Figure 2 of Zhu, outlet hole leading to outlet passages 1B, 1D, is located on a circumferential wall of the housing 1 and surrounds a virtual line, shown in Figure 2, extending between the axially facing sides of each rotor set, perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A), further in view of Goss et al. (hereafter “Goss” – WO 2024/194174).
With regards to Claim 18:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 does not explicitly teach the outer diameter of the first outer rotor corresponds to at most twice or 1.5 times the root circle diameter of the first outer rotor and/or wherein the outer diameter of the second outer rotor corresponds to at most twice or 1.5 times the root circle diameter of the second outer rotor. Goss (Figures 1, 8, 11) teaches an internal gear pump including an outer rotor (4). Goss goes on to teach that the root circle diameter is an important parameter in the design of the machine. The root circle diameter and the outer diameter essentially define the thickness of the outer rotors perimeter in the radial direction, such that a thicker outer rotor perimeter may yield a more durable rotor, capable of withstanding higher pressures, but the expense of a larger installation space and additional weight, while a thinner outer rotor perimeter would yield the opposite. Goss further discusses an increase or decrease in a dead space related to these diameters. While Goss also describes a tip circle diameter and its contributions to the above, the same applies for the outer diameter of the rotor. Given the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would regard the relationship between the root circle diameter and the outer diameter as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result when varied. As per MPEP 2144.05, once a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhu by modifying the ratio between the outer rotor diameter and the root circle diameter, including to make the ratio at most 1.5 outer diameter to root circle diameter, in order to optimize pump performance based on desired weight, pump size/installation space, and pump internal volume/dead space. Finally, applicant has presented no evidence of criticality or unexpected results of the recited range.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A), further in view of Ichinose (JP H02-153281 A).
With regards to Claim 20:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 teaches a front-facing side of the first delivery chamber axially faces opposite a front-facing side of the second delivery chamber (see Figure 2 of Zhu), the pump housing comprises a feed line (inlets 1A, 1C, Figure 2 of Zhu), which is connected to the housing inlet, and a drainage line (outlets 1B, 1D, Figure 2 of Zhu) which is connected to the housing outlet, but does not explicitly teach the feed line and/or the drainage line extends up to and between the mutually facing front-facing sides of the delivery chambers (although Paragraph 11 teaches “when the double suction is in parallel operation, it draws in from both sides”, but it is unclear whether this means both sides of each rotor set).
Ichinose (Figures 1, 2, and 16), teaches an internal gear pump including a housing (A), an inlet on the housing (unlabeled, see Figure 16), an outlet on the housing (unlabeled, see Figure 16), rotors sets (3, 4, and 5, 6) that are axially spaced apart so as to have axial sides facing one another, and feed and drainage lines leading to/from the rotors from/to the inlet/outlets. Ichinose may even be used in place of Zhu in the rejection of Claim 16 given the similar arrangement. Ichinose goes on to teach that the feed line and/or the drainage line extends up to and between the mutually facing front-facing sides of the delivery chambers (see Figure 1, rotor sets 3, 4, and 5, 6 are open on both axial sides and in fluid communication with the inlets/outlets on both axial sides thereof). Such an arrangement allows for a larger suction/discharge volume in each delivery chamber, thereby facilitating fluid throughput. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhu by enabling fluid to flow on both axial sides of the rotor sets in order to yield the predictable results described above.
With regards to Claim 22:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 teaches at least one of the sets of rotors can be filled with the fluid on a front-facing side and a rear-facing side and/or the fluid can be expelled on a front-facing side and a rear-facing side of at least one of the sets of rotors (see Figures 1, 2, and 16 of Ichinose, as per modification, both axial sides of each rotor set in Ichinose are open to receive/expel fluid).
Claims 23 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A), further in view of Schonlau et al. (hereafter “Schonlau” – DE 102015011732).
With regards to Claims 23 – 25:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 teaches the first inner rotor and/or the second inner rotor surround(s) the drive shaft (see Figure 1 of Zhu), but does not explicitly teach the first inner rotor and/or the second inner rotor is/are non-rotationally connected to the drive shaft in a positive fit and/or frictional fit, or in a groove and traverse pin connection. Schonlau (Figure 1, Paragraphs 15, 16) teaches a gerotor or internal gear pump including an inner rotor (2) and a shaft (2), which are connected together using “[a] proven method …, namely a press fit, a splined connection or a polygon connection” (see Paragraph 6, see also Paragraphs 12 and 13). Press fit and splined connections (spline connections meeting the groove and transverse pin claim requirements) are widely known in the art to transfer torque from one rotating component to another rotating component and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhu by press fitting the inner rotors to the drive shaft or connecting the inner rotor and shaft with a spline connection in order to ensure proper torque transmission.
Claims 26, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A), further in view of Kato et al. (hereafter “Kato” – US 2013/0136586).
With regards to Claims 26 and 27:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 does not explicitly teach an electric drive motor featuring a stator and a rotor that is non-rotationally assembled on or on top of the drive shaft, wherein the rotor is joined to the drive shaft in a positive fit and/or frictional fit. Kato (Figure 3) teaches an internal gear pump including an inner rotor (22), an outer rotor (23), a shaft (15) press-fit onto the inner rotor (Paragraph 16), an electric drive motor (50) featuring a stator (40) and a rotor (34) that is non-rotationally assembled on or on top of the drive shaft, wherein the rotor is joined to the drive shaft in a positive fit and/or frictional fit (Paragraph 19: “The rotor 34 is press fit and fixed to the second end 15b, which is an end of the rotation shaft 15 provided at the opposite side of where the inner rotor 22 is fixed”). Press fit connections are widely known in the art to transfer torque from one rotating component to another rotating component and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhu by incorporating an electric motor and press fitting the motor rotor to the drive shaft in order to drive the pump and to ensure proper torque transmission.
With regards to Claim 29:
The Zhu modification of Claim 26 teaches the drive motor is arranged in an engine housing (motor housing 32, Figure 3 of Kato), the drive shaft protrudes through a front-facing wall which extends axially between the pump housing (pump housing 12, Figure 3 of Kato) and the engine housing, and the front-facing wall forms a shaft bearing (as shown in Figure 3 of Kato, drive shaft 15 extends from the pump housing 12 to the motor housing 32, with the pump housing wall forming a bearing-like arrangement with the drive shaft).
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A), further in view of Busch (DE 102016118627 A).
With regards to Claims 26 and 28:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 does not explicitly teach an electric drive motor featuring a stator and a rotor that is non-rotationally assembled on or on top of the drive shaft, wherein the drive shaft supports the rotor in a radially floating manner. Busch (Figure 1) teaches an internal gear pump including an inner rotor (20), an outer rotor (29), a drive shaft (4), an electric drive motor (3) featuring a stator (33) and a rotor (30) that is non-rotationally assembled on or on top of the drive shaft, wherein the drive shaft supports the rotor in a radially floating manner (see Paragraphs 68, 69, 71: “the inner circumferential surface in the through-bore of the motor rotor 30 itself forms the outer sliding bearing surface of the floating sliding bearing 34 on the shaft 4”, “the motor rotor 30 is further supported by axial sliding bearings 31 to limit any movement of the floating bearing 34 on the shaft 4”). As per Paragraph 13 of Busch, “the floating separate bearing of the pump rotor according to the invention, transverse forces in the plane of the pump rotor, which result, for example, from turbulent flows and a pulsating displacement effect of the vanes, are not transmitted to a shaft bearing via a rigid shaft-rotor connection as in a conventional design, but are introduced into the pump housing through contact between the pump rotor and the boundary surfaces of the pump chamber. This relieves the rotor bearing of the pump rotor from axial forces”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhu by incorporating an electric motor and incorporating a floating motor rotor connection to the drive shaft in order to drive the pump and to yield the predictable benefits described above.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A), further in view of Muller et al. (hereafter “Muller” – GB 2191543).
With regards to Claims 30 and 31:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 appears to teach a shaft bearing axially between the sets of rotors (see isolation sleeve 6 and isolation plates 5, forming a bearing-like structure against the drive shaft 7 in Figure 1 of Zhu), however, there is no explicit teaching of the drive shaft is rotatably mounted in a shaft bearing of the pump housing, axially between the sets of rotors, wherein the shaft bearing is a radial slide bearing. Muller (Figure 1) teaches an internal gear pump including a drive shaft (7), and a set of rotor pairs (2a, 21a, and 2b, 21b) in parallel with one another. Muller may even be used in place of Zhu in the rejection of Claim 16 given the similar arrangement. Muller goes on to teach the drive shaft is rotatably mounted in a shaft bearing (bearing 8) of the pump housing, axially between the sets of rotors, wherein the shaft bearing is a radial slide bearing (as shown in Figure 1, bearing 8 is a plain bearing, also known as a slide bearing). Bearings are widely known in the art to constrain movement to only desired movement and support load. MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Zhu modification by adding a slide bearing axially between the rotors in order to yield the predictable result of supporting and constrain movement of the drive shaft.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A), further in view of Muller et al. (hereafter “Muller” – GB 2191543), further in view of Bucher (US 2016/0230620).
With regards to Claims 32 and 33:
The Zhu modification of Claim 30 teaches the first delivery chamber exhibits a low-pressure region (at suction region of Zhu), a high-pressure region (at discharge region of Zhu) and a separating stay (where the inner rotor and the outer rotor mesh, forming a separation between the suction and discharge regions) between the low-pressure region and the high-pressure region in the circumferential direction in order to fluidically separate the high-pressure region and the low-pressure region of the first delivery chamber from each other, and the second delivery chamber exhibits a low-pressure region (at suction region of Zhu), a high-pressure region (at discharge region of Zhu) and a separating stay (where the inner rotor and the outer rotor mesh, forming a separation between the suction and discharge regions) between the low-pressure region and the high-pressure region in the circumferential direction in order to fluidically separate the high-pressure region and the low-pressure region of the second delivery chamber from each other.
The Zhu modification does not explicitly teach the separating stay of the first delivery chamber exhibits an angular offset with respect to the separating stay of the second delivery chamber as measured in the circumferential direction about a rotational axis of the first set of rotors and/or second set of rotors, such that when the sets of rotors rotate, the expelling process of the first set of rotors per revolution and the expelling process of the second set of rotors per revolution are phase-shifted in accordance with the angular offset, wherein the angular offset measures at least a quarter and at most three quarters of a tooth width of the first outer rotor as measured in the circumferential direction on the pitch circle and/or at least a quarter and at most three quarters of a tooth width of the second outer rotor as measured in the circumferential direction on the pitch circle. Bucher (Figure 1) teaches an internal gear pump including two inner rotors (11, 13) meshing with an outer rotor (9) at separating stay locations, respectively. Bucher teaches that the separating stay locations are angularly offset from one another in the circumferential direction by at least a quarter and at most three quarters of a tooth width (see Figure 1, Paragraph 41: “the externally toothed spur gear 11 may here for example also be arranged in a maximum position, in which the externally toothed spur gears 11, 13 are arranged twisted relative to each other by half a tooth pitch”). Bucher goes on to teach that it is “known in an external gear pump to split the teeth axially or arrange at least two gear wheels behind each other viewed in the axial direction. The split teeth are then usually arranged rotated relative to each other by half a tooth pitch. In this way the amplitudes of the pressure pulses occurring on operation of the gear pump can be reduced, since the volume of the delivery chambers is diminished and the viscosity of the fluid has a damping effect when the fluid flows from one delivery chamber to the next delivery chamber. Too great an amplitude of the pressure pulses in an oil circuit can for example frequently lead to an overload of oil coolers, overpressure valves and further elements of the oil circuit” (Paragraph 4). Given the teachings of Bucher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Zhu modification to angularly offset the separating stays in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereafter “Zhu” – CN 113404690 A) in view of Wang et al. (hereafter “Wang” – CN 114776581 A), further in view of Lee et al. (hereafter “Lee” – WO 2018135737).
With regards to Claims 34 and 35:
The Zhu modification of Claim 16 does not explicitly teach a cooling and/or lubricating circuit of an electrically driven and/or combustion-driven motor vehicle, wherein the cooling and/or lubricating circuit comprises the toothed wheel pump according to claim 16, which is designed to deliver a cooling and/or lubricating fluid in the cooling and/or lubricating circuit, wherein the toothed wheel pump delivers the fluid for directly cooling a vehicle traction battery. Zhu is silent as to applications for their pump.
Lee (Figures 1 – 4) teaches a gerotor pump having a pair of rotor sets (20, 30), wherein the pump “can be applied to an oil pump such as a lubrication device for an automobile engine or an automatic transmission. For example, it can be applied to hydraulic power generators for various vehicles, AWD (All Wheel Driving) systems, battery pack cooling systems for electric vehicles, lubrication systems for hybrid vehicles, booster pumps for autonomous tractors, etc.” (Paragraph 53). Given the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of the Zhu modification by using the pump in an electric vehicle battery cooling system in order to ensure adequate coolant flow through the batteries to maximize operating life thereof.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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 on (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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Wednesday, August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights