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 .
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 13-20 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.
Claim 13 requires a spring element. However, claim 12 already claims “spring-mounted” which would mean a spring is required. It is unclear if the spring element is the spring required in claim 12, or not. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 14-20 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 13.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-14, 16-19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witchger US 2434135.
Witchger discloses:
12. (New) A gerotor pump comprising an inner rotor 20 and a rotatably mounted outer rotor 22, wherein the outer rotor is spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded toward the inner rotor (spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded toward the inner rotor via 74, 76, 78, 80, 82) .
13. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein a spring element (spring element is read as 74, 76, 78, 80, 82; or alternatively, as 78) is arranged between the outer rotor 22 and a housing component 70 of the gerotor pump.
14. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the outer rotor is mounted by means of a shaft 46.
17. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the spring element 78 is clamped and/or inserted into the housing component (see e.g. Fig 4).
18. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the spring element has at least one portion extending in the axial direction (78 extends in the axial direction).
19. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein, in a radial direction, the spring element (74, 76, 78, 80, 82) has portions of different widths (e.g. 74 has a different width than 76 in the radial direction).
22. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein the gerotor pump is an oil pump (Oil is an intended use of the pump in an apparatus claim. The pump of Witchger is structurally capable of pumping oil and thus meets the limitation of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II.).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child US 4540347.
Child discloses:
12. (New) A gerotor pump comprising an inner rotor (axially inner rotor 18) and a rotatably mounted outer rotor (axially outer rotor 20, 22, 24, 26, and shaft in annotated Fig 3 herein) wherein the outer rotor is spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded toward the inner rotor (spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded axially toward the inner rotor via 24).
13. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein a spring element 24 is arranged between the outer rotor and a housing component 10 of the gerotor pump.
14. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the outer rotor is mounted by means of a shaft 26.
15. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 14, wherein the spring element and/or the shaft has/have a cambered contour at a contact site with the shaft or the spring element, respectively (see e.g. 24 in Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witchger US 2434135.
Witchger discloses:
16. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the spring element is a punched and/or bent part (78 is a bent part or is the same or obvious from a bent part). See MPEP 2113 I: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 12-14, 16, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosinski US 20240318650 in view of Ueno US 5811903.
Rosinski discloses:
12. (New) A gerotor pump the comprising an inner rotor 130 and a rotatably mounted outer rotor 40.
Rosinski does not disclose wherein the outer rotor is spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded toward the inner rotor.
Ueno discloses the use of a thrust bearing for the top of a motor rotor including wherein the rotor is spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded axially (via 24 in e.g. Figs 12-13).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a thrust bearing for the top of the motor rotor as taught by Ueno in the system of Rosinski to gain the benefit of opposing forces in the thrust direction.
With this modification, Rosinski as modified above would disclose wherein the outer rotor 40 is spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded toward the inner rotor (via 24 of Ueno).
Rosinski as modified above discloses (all references to Rosinski unless noted otherwise):
13. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein a spring element (24 of Ueno) is arranged between the outer rotor 40 and a housing component 160 of the gerotor pump.
14. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the outer rotor is mounted by means of a shaft 34.
16. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the spring element is a punched and/or bent part 24 is a punched part or is the same or obvious from a punched part). See MPEP 2113 I: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
18. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the spring element has at least one portion extending in the axial direction (see e.g. Figs 12-13 of Ueno wherein 24 extends in the axial direction).
19. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein, in a radial direction, the spring element (24 of Ueno) has portions of different widths (see e.g. Fig 12 of Ueno).
20. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the spring element is a disk (see e.g. Fig 12 of Ueno).
21. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein the outer rotor is also a rotor of an electric drive (see e.g. 0035).
22. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein the gerotor pump is an oil pump (see e.g. 0058).
Claim(s) 12-15, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosinski US 20240318650 in view of Larson US 3604962.
Rosinski discloses:
12. (New) A gerotor pump the comprising an inner rotor 130 and a rotatably mounted outer rotor 40.
Rosinski does not disclose wherein the outer rotor is spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded toward the inner rotor.
Larson discloses wherein the outer rotor is spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded in the axial direction (via 38 in e.g. Fig 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a thrust bearing for the top of the motor rotor as taught by Larson in the system of Rosinski to gain the benefit of opposing forces in the thrust direction.
With this modification, Rosinski as modified above would disclose wherein the outer rotor 40 is spring-mounted in an axial direction and preloaded toward the inner rotor (via 38 of Larson).
Rosinski as modified above discloses (all references to Rosinski unless noted otherwise):
13. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein a spring element (38 of Larson) is arranged between the outer rotor (12 of Larson) and a housing component (34 of Larson) of the motor wherein the rotor is part of the gerotor pump of Rosinski.
14. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the outer rotor is mounted by means of a shaft 34.
15. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 14, wherein the spring element and/or the shaft has/have a cambered contour at a contact site with the shaft or the spring element, respectively (see e.g. 38 in Fig 1).
20. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 13, wherein the spring element is a disk (see e.g. 38 in plug 32 in Fig 1 of Larson).
21. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein the outer rotor is also a rotor of an electric drive (see e.g. 0035).
22. (New) The gerotor pump according to claim 12, wherein the gerotor pump is an oil pump (see e.g. 0058).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights