DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/17/2025 and IDS filed 10/24/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 11 have been amended, claims 7 and 10 have been canceled previously, and claims 13-15 have been added. Thus, claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11-15 are presently pending in this application, claims 12 remains withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 17: “a vibro-acoustic decoupling device formed by the motor support, comprising:” should be changed to -- a vibro-acoustic decoupling device formed by the motor supporcomprising: --. (for clarity)
Claim 1, lines 22-23: “the plurality of rigid fingers engage with the thermoplastic elastomer ribs” should be changed to -- the plurality of rigid fingers being engaged with the thermoplastic elastomer ribs--. (for clarity)
Claim 11, line 17: “a vibro-acoustic decoupling device formed by the motor support, comprising:” should be changed to -- a vibro-acoustic decoupling device formed by the motor supporcomprising: --. (for clarity)
Claim 11, lines 22-23: “the plurality of rigid fingers engage with the thermoplastic elastomer ribs” should be changed to -- the plurality of rigid fingers being engaged with the thermoplastic elastomer ribs--. (for clarity)
Claim 13, lines 1-2: “the base comprises one or more studs with thermoplastic elastomer ribs located thereon” should be changed to -- the base comprises one or more studs with the thermoplastic elastomer ribs located thereon--. (for clarity)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 14 is 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 14 is vague and indefinite because it sets forth that “a rigid finger engages with a thermoplastic elastomer rib on each side of the stud when the motor cover is arranged on the base”. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is attempting to require a different, separate “rigid finger” and/or “thermoplastic elastomer rib” or further defines the “plurality of rigid fingers” and/or “thermoplastic elastomer ribs”, as recited in claim 1, lines 18-24, or something else. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that “a rigid finger engages with a thermoplastic elastomer rib on each side of the stud when the motor cover is arranged on the base” recited in lines 1-2 should read as – each rigid finger of the plurality of rigid fingers engages with each thermoplastic elastomer rib on each side of the stud when the motor cover is arranged on the base--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (Pub. No.: US 2015/0004018 A1) in view of Wanezaki (Pub. No.:
US 2018/0131252 A1), and further in view of Pettitt (Pub. No.: US 2009/0058203 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Le discloses an air blower (fan module 100, as presented in Paragraph [0029]) for a heating, ventilating and/or air conditioning device (HVAC) for a motor vehicle, the air blower comprising:
an electric motor (electric motor 110, as presented in Paragraphs [0026]& [0028]) comprising a drive shaft (defined by an axis of rotation 115, as shown in annotated Figure 2b) and brushes (brushes 150 that are being attached to the stator 140 and lie opposite one another preferably in relation to the axis of rotation 115, as presented in Paragraph [0028] and annotated Figure 2);
a wheel (fan wheel 105, as detailed in Paragraph [0027]) is mounted (the fan wheel 105 and an electric motor 110 being mutually connected in an axial manner such that the electric motor 110 can rotate the fan wheel 105 about an axis of rotation 115 (see Paragraph [0026]); and further the fan wheel 105 comprises several fan blades that extend in an axial direction and are arranged on a periphery around the axis of rotation 115, as stated in Paragraph [0027]),
wherein said wheel (fan wheel 105) generates a main air flow (air flow which is entering axially from above at an inlet side 185 of the fan wheel 105 and is accelerated radially outwards to an outlet side 190, as discussed in Paragraph [0030], and further flowing through the fan module, as illustrated in annotated Figure 1) in said HVAC device; and
a motor support (defined by module housing 155 that is fastened to the stator 140 of the electric motor 110 while being designed for the purpose of fastening the fan module 100 to a ventilation system housing, as stated in Paragraph [0029], and/or housing cover 160, as detailed in Paragraphs [0029]& [0032] &[0036]-[0037], otherwise, the system cannot normally operate) in which said electric motor (electric motor 110, as seen immediately below) is housed.
Particularly, as stated in Paragraph [0026], Le demonstrates as how the fan module 100 comprises a fan wheel 105 and an electric motor 110 that are mutually connected in an axial manner such that the electric motor 110 can rotate the fan wheel 105 about an axis of rotation 115.
PNG
media_image1.png
605
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, in Paragraph [0029], Le especially teaches that: The module housing 155 is fastened to the stator 140 of the electric motor 110 and is designed for the purpose of fastening the fan module 100 to a ventilation system.
The module housing 155 comprises a base plate 165 that lies in a plane of rotation about the axis of rotation 115. A cut-out 170 is provided through the base plate 165 in a region radially outside a contour of the fan wheel 105, wherein a diverting element 175 protrudes axially upwards on a border of the cut-out 170. The cut-out 170 represents the beginning of a cooling air ducting 180 that is initially formed by means of the module housing 155 and the housing cover 160 and leads from the cut-out 170 to an axially lower end of the electric motor 110. From there, the cooling air ducting 180 extends past the brushes 150 of the electric motor 110 and axially upwards through the electric motor 110 to the fan wheel 105 where the cooling air ducting 180 terminates at the cut-outs 135.
PNG
media_image2.png
471
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Likewise, in Paragraph [0030], Le expressly states that: During operation of the fan module 100, air enters axially from above at an inlet side 185 of the fan wheel 105 and is accelerated radially outwards to an outlet side 190. A part of the air that is accelerated enters from the outlet side 190 through the cut-out 170 axially into the cooling air ducting 180 and then, after the circulation, exits axially through the cut-outs 135 of the fan wheel 105. The exiting cooling air blends there with the incoming air and can be conveyed afresh through the fan wheel 105.
In fact, with reference to annotated Figure 1, Le’s system is designed such that the motor support, which is defined by the module housing 155 and the housing cover 160, is certainly comprising an air duct 180 in which a secondary air flow is being originated from said main air flow MAF is being capable of circulating.
Le, in Paragraph [0032], then goes on to describe how: A part of the conveyed air is conveyed in an inclined manner downwards to the lower axial end of the electric motor 110 from the outlet side 190 through the cooling air ducting 180 between the module housing 155 and the housing cover 160. The air flows axially upwards at this site past the brushes 150, flows through the electric motor 110 between its stator 145 and its rotor 140 and flows onwards axially upwards in the direction of the fan wheel 105. The cooling air ducting 180 terminates at the cut-out 135 in the base plate 130 of the fan wheel 105. The cooling air exits upwards in a region near to the axis of rotation 115 and flows essentially in the opposite direction to the air that enters from above at the inlet side 185.
PNG
media_image3.png
339
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, most importantly in Le is his specific arrangement and/or structure of the air duct 180 which is clearly being shaped in such a way that takes the air flow coming from the main channel or main air flow MAF and conveys it to the brushes 150 of electric motor 110.
Still further, as best seen immediately above, the air duct 180 is certainly consisting of upper and lower parts. As such, the examiner must assert that said air duct 180 is comprising a first or upper part P1 and a second or lower part P2 while said second or lower part P2 surely comprising a curved shape so as to direct said secondary air flow onto said brushes 150 of said electric motor 110, as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
435
560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With specific regard to claim 11, Le evidently demonstrates as how an angled section of the cooling air ducting 180, which is initially formed by means of the module housing 155 and the housing cover 160, is certainly forming a conic section CS180.
Similarly, as best seen in annotated Figure 3, Le evidently illustrates as how the outer wall of the air ducting 180 includes a generally constant position in radial direction while a curved profile of this air ducting 180 can be defined as a part or segment of the circumference of a circle or an arc of a circle.
Le more clearly discloses that “the brushes 150 are spaced from one another and the cooling air ducting 180 comprises a diverting element 410 for guiding a part flow of cooling air to each of the brushes 150” (see claim 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
452
585
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would surely recognize that said second part is surely comprising a conic shape with a constant radius of curvature so as to direct said secondary air flow onto said brushes 150 of said electric motor, wherein the secondary air flow is contained close to the brushes so as to cool the brushes, as instantly claimed.
Additionally, as stated in Paragraph [0036], Le explicitly teaches that: It is evident how the housing cover 160 closes the cooling air ducting 180 on the section between the cut-out 170 and the lower axial end of the electric motor 110 in annotated Figure 1 above.
Clearly, Le, disclosing this housing cover 160, specifically teaches a motor cover that is capable of covering said electric motor 110 on a side opposite to said wheel 105 and defining said second or lower part P2 of said air duct 180, as instantly claimed.
Further, in Paragraph [0029[, Le especially notes that: The module housing 155 comprises a base plate 165 that lies in a plane of rotation about the axis of rotation 115. A cut-out 170 is provided through the base plate 165 in a region radially outside a contour of the fan wheel 105, wherein a diverting element 175 protrudes axially upwards on a border of the cut-out 170. Still further, in claim 7, Le expressly states that: a base plate 165 having a cut-out 170 for allowing cooling air to pass through axially from the outlet side 190 into the cooling air ducting 180 is provided in a plane of rotation between the electric motor 110 and the fan wheel 105.
In fact, Le’s device utilizes a base or base plate 165 that is surely being capable of directly and/or indirectly defining said first or upper part P1 of said air duct 180, as instantly claimed.
Although Le discloses the majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, he does not explicitly disclose that the drive shaft is being within the wheel.
Nonetheless, Wanezaki in the same field of endeavor teaches another blow assembly, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 2A&2B of Le, and performs as how, as stated in Paragraph [0002], this blower can be used in different HVAC modules and/or how the motor coils can be efficiently cooled by directly blowing and circulating a part of blown air generated by the rotation of the impeller to the motor coils (see Paragraph [0016]).
Wanezaki, in Paragraph [0015], successfully teaches as how: When the rotor yoke integrally assembled to the rotor shaft is concentric with the impeller facing the rotor yoke so as to be aligned with the impeller in the axial direction within the internal diameter side housing space of the impeller, the blower can be small-sized by suppressing the assembly height in the axial direction of the impeller and the rotor yoke concentrically assembled to the rotor shaft.
Once again, Wanezaki, in Paragraph [0024], further specifies: the structure of the rotor 8 will be described with reference to FIG. 2. A rotor yoke 17 formed in a cup is integrally assembled to the rotor shaft 7 by press-fitting, shrinkage fitting, adhesion, and the like. One end of the rotor shaft 7 passes through the motor board 10 and is retained and supported by the motor case 5. The rotor yoke 17 is aligned with the impeller 2 integrally assembled to the other end of the rotor shaft 7 in the axial direction within an internal diameter side housing space 2a of the impeller 2. Accordingly, the blower 1 can be small-sized by suppressing the assembly height in the axial direction of the impeller 2 and the rotor yoke 17 concentrically assembled to the rotor shaft 7.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a rotor shaft within an impeller, as taught by Wanezaki, with the air blower of Le, in order to further improve the motor efficiency, as stated in Paragraph [0003], and/or to further reduce the size of the blower by suppressing a height of the assembly in the axial direction of the impeller, as motivated by Wanezaki in Paragraph [0015].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably apprised that the wheel would be further mounted on said drive shaft and/or said drive shaft would be further within said wheel and/or said wheel would be further generating a main air flow in the HVAC device, as instantly claimed.
However, although the combination of Le and Wanezaki discloses the vast majority of Applicant's claimed elements, it does not explicitly disclose a vibro-acoustic decoupling device.
Nevertheless, the use of a vibro-acoustic decoupling device in an air blower for a motor vehicle is well-known in the art, as taught by Pettitt.
Pettitt in the same field of endeavor teaches a motor attachment assembly that, as stated in Abstract, “includes an electric motor having spring clips adapted to securely lock onto the isolation posts of a plastic post vibration isolation system”.
Pettitt, in Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], successfully teaches as how: Best shown in Figs 3 and 4, longitudinal segment 40 includes plastic post mounting portion 37 that includes axial cylinder 44 that defines channel 47 having an initial internal diameter adapted to receive a larger diameter plastic post 13. Shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, axial cylinder 44 has an interior wall 46 that defines channel 47 to receive and securely lock onto plastic post 13. Interior wall 46 includes barb 48 and an annular groove 50 to prevent the extraction of plastic post 13 once the post is inserted into spring. Axial cylinder 44 also includes stop 53 to limit the insertion of plastic post 13 to ensure the proper positioning of motor 10. Located on latitudinal segment 38 and continuing to longitudinal segment 40 is slit 52. Slit 52 is biased toward a closed position, which in turn will decrease the internal diameter of axial cylinder 44. Longitudinal segment 40 is adapted to be securely abutted against housing 16 to prevent lateral movement of spring clip 11 due to torsional forces while the motor is in operation, which is best shown in FIG. 2. Longitudinal segment 40 is adapted to be securely abutted against housing 16 to prevent lateral movement of spring clip 11 due to torsional forces while the motor is in operation, which is best shown in FIG. 2. Shown in FIG. 1 is motor attachment assembly 2 having spring clips 11 attached to motor 10 between end cap 17 and housing 16. Motor attachment assembly 2 is shown in FIG. 2 axially spaced apart from plastic post vibration isolation system 19. Vibration isolation system 19 includes motor cup 54 adapted to receive second end 26 of housing 16. Extending axially from motor cup 54 toward output shaft 12 are plastic isolation posts 13. The axial cylinders 44 of spring clips 11 are aligned with plastic post 13 just prior to insertion of plastic post 13 into channel 47 defined by axial cylinder 44.
PNG
media_image6.png
682
468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Likewise, in Paragraph [0020], Pettitt expressly states that: Locator tabs 30 extend axially from rim 28 in the direction of output shaft 12 and are aligned relative to notches 22 defined by ledge 20 of end cap 17. The height of each locator tab 30 is at least equal to the thickness of ledge 20. Cut out of at least one or more locator tabs 30 are deformable fingers 32 that may be spread apart. Once locator tabs 30 are inserted into corresponding notches 22, fingers 32 are spread apart and over ledge 20, thereby locking end cap 17 onto housing 16 as shown in FIG. 2
Obviously, with reference to annotated Figure 2, Pettitt explicitly exhibits as how plastic ribs or plastic posts 13 being attached with the base portion while supports or spring clips 11 being attached with the motor cover 17.
PNG
media_image7.png
710
688
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Most importantly, however, is the specific structure and/or arrangement of spring clips 11 that are functioning as supports.
Further, with reference to annotated Figure 1, Pettitt evidently illustrates as how: the supports, which are defined by the spring clips 11, are surely being configured to connect a plurality of fingers 32 and to the motor cover 17 such that the plurality of fingers 32 extend beyond a periphery of the motor cover 17 in an axial direction, as indicated by the arrow FF, wherein the plurality of fingers 32 engage with the thermoplastic elastomer ribs when the motor cover is arranged on the base.
In other words, with reference to annotated Figures 1&2, Pettitt evidently demonstrates as how the vibro-acoustic decoupling device formed by the motor support, comprising: plastic ribs 13 attached with the base and/or supports attached with the motor cover while the supports or spring clips 11 configured to connect a plurality of fingers 32 to the motor cover 17 such that the plurality of fingers 32 extend beyond a periphery of the motor cover 17 in an axial direction and/or the plurality of fingers 32 engage with the plastic ribs 13 when the motor cover 17 is arranged on the base, as instantly claimed.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using the decoupling means or vibro-decoupling device with ribs or vibro-acoustic decoupling device with ribs, as taught by Pettitt, in the air blower of Le/ Wanezaki, in order to further provide a desired torsional stiffness to target the natural frequency of the motor and mount system such that isolation/attenuation occurs in the commutation order frequency range, as motivated by Pettitt in Paragraph [0005].
Furthermore, with specific regard to the limitation “thermoplastic elastomer ribs” and/or “ plurality of rigid fingers” it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a compound since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (or material compound) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been surely appraised to further provide a vibro-acoustic decoupling device that would be further comprising thermoplastic elastomer ribs being attached with the base and/or the supports that would be further configured to further connect a plurality of rigid fingers to the motor cover such that the plurality of rigid fingers would be further extending beyond a periphery of the motor cover in an axial direction and/or the plurality of rigid fingers would be further engaged with the thermoplastic elastomer ribs when the motor cover is arranged on the base, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt substantially disclose the air blower, as claimed and as detailed above.
Additionally, in Paragraphs [0029], Le specifically teaches that: The cut-out 170 represents the beginning of a cooling air ducting 180 that is initially formed by means of the module housing 155 and the housing cover 160 and leads from the cut-out 170 to an axially lower end of the electric motor 110. From there, the cooling air ducting 180 extends past the brushes 150 of the electric motor 110 and axially upwards through the electric motor 110 to the fan wheel 105 where the cooling air ducting 180 terminates at the cut-outs 135.
More specifically, in Paragraph [0037], Le also notes that: The cooling air ducting 180 extends radially from left to right in the direction of the axis of rotation 115. A diverting element 410 is embodied on the housing cover 160 in the path of the cooling air and said diverting element divides the flow of cooling air into two flows that are preferably of equal magnitude. As the two currents flow onwards they are subsequently diverted in an inclined manner downwards and/or upwards, in that they are guided in inclined sections of the cooling air ducting 180, are bordered by the housing cover 160. In order to divert the two flows of cooling air axially to the brushes 150, axially diverting elements 405 are embodied on the housing cover in regions that lie axially above the brushes 150 after mounting the housing cover 160 on the fan module 100.
PNG
media_image8.png
398
665
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Clearly, as best seen immediately above, Le evidently illustrates as how the duct 180 having a cavity or channel of a volute that would be directly and/or indirectly oriented in the direction of said motor support, which is being defined by the module housing 155 and/or housing cover 160.
As such, according to the combination, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that said second part P2 having a cavity that would be necessarily orienting said secondary air flow within said motor support, as instantly claimed.
10. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Wanezaki, and further in view of Pettitt, and further in view of Noda et al. (hereinafter “Noda”) (Pub. No.: US 2004/0263009 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt substantially disclose the air blower, as claimed and as detailed above. Additionally, in Paragraph [0037], Le specifically teaches that: In order to divert the two flows of cooling air axially to the brushes 150, axially diverting elements 405 are embodied on the housing cover in regions that lie axially above the brushes 150 after mounting the housing cover 160 on the fan module 100. Also, in claim 2, Le expressly states that: the electric motor 110 is a commutated direct current motor having brushes 150 and the cooling air ducting 180 extends from the outlet side 190 to the brushes 150 and from there in an axial direction to the fan wheel 105.
However, although the combination of Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt discloses the vast majority of Applicant's claimed elements, it does not explicitly disclose specifics regarding commutators and brush holders. Nonetheless, the use of commutators and brush holders in an air blower assembly for a heating, ventilating and/or air conditioning device for a motor vehicle is well known in the art, as taught by Noda.
Noda in the same field of endeavor successfully demonstrates another direct-current motor for a vehicle air conditioner, wherein, as stated in Paragraph [0020], Noda exhibits as how “the brush holder 3 covers an open end (upper end as viewed in FIG. 1) of the yoke 2 and holds brushes 3a.”
Further, in Paragraph [0020], Noda explicitly teaches: A rotary shaft 6 of the armature 5 is rotatably supported with a bearing 7 fixed to the brush holder 3 and with a bearing 8 fixed to the yoke 2 such that one end of the rotary shaft 6 protrudes upward from the brush holder 3. Notably, in Paragraph [0021], Noda also details: The armature 5, which is located inside the magnets 4, has a core 5a and a commutator 5b. The core 5a is fixed to a section of the rotary shaft 6 that is slightly below the middle of the rotary shaft 6. The commutator 5b is fixed to the section of the rotary shaft 6 that is slightly above the middle of the rotary shaft 6. The brushes 3a held by the brush holder 3 slide on the commutator 5b. A fan 9 is coupled to the upper end of the rotary shaft 6 to rotate integrally with the rotary shaft 6. When the rotary shaft 6 rotates, the fan 9 flows air above in radially outward directions. The fan 9 includes a boss 9a, a bell-shaped portion 9b, an annular portion 9c, blades 9d, and a coupling portion 9e. The rotary shaft 6 is fitted in the boss 9a. The bell-shaped portion 9b extends from the boss 9a to cover the upper sides of the brush holder 3 and the yoke 2.
PNG
media_image9.png
511
771
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Still further, as shown immediately above, Noda evidently demonstrates as how commutators 5b having a shape with openings or apertures or slots as well as brush holder 3 including an opening. More specifically, in Paragraph [0030], Noda expressly states: the airflow cools the components of the motor 1, such as the coil of the armature 5, the brushes 3a, and the commutator 5b.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a brush holder and commutators at the motor holder, as taught by Noda, to the air blower of Le/ Wanezaki/ Pettitt, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of brush holders and commutators at the motor holder to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the fluid flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
With regards to the limitation “brush holders” that the combination of Le, Wanezaki, Pettitt and Noda, it has been held In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VIB. 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 result of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the mere duplication of parts.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that electric motor would be further comprising commutators and said brushes would be further arranged in brush holders and/or at least one of said brushes and/or said brush holders and/or said commutators would be further comprising openings, as instantly claimed.
11. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Wanezaki, and further in view of Pettitt, and further in view of Uemura et al. (hereinafter “Uemura”) (Pub. No.: US 2001/0017203 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt substantially disclose the air blower, as claimed and as detailed above. Additionally, in Paragraph [0016], Le explicitly teaches as how: Air that is exiting at the outlet side is predominantly accelerated in the tangential and radial direction. Then, in Paragraph [0039], Le more specifically discloses as how: The fan module 100 is arranged in an air duct 505 having a spiral shaped border. The air duct 505 is used for the purpose of collecting the air that is being accelerated radially by the fan wheel 105 in order to release the air through a tangential exhaust duct 510.
PNG
media_image10.png
489
781
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In fact, Le explicitly exhibits as how the second part comprising a radial distance RD180 and a tangent that is necessarily forming an angle with respect to the drive shaft or axis of rotation 115.
However, although the combination of Le/Wanezaki/ Pettitt discloses the vast majority of Applicant's claimed elements, it is still silent as to the fact that the tangent forming an angle with said drive shaft is between 45 degrees and 60 degrees and/or a radial distance is between 61 and 82 millimeters.
Nevertheless, it is well-known fact that a geometry or angle modification or optimization of angle or optimization of radial distance would change characteristics of the air flow, as taught by Uemura.
Uemura in the same field of endeavor teaches another blower unit for an automotive air conditioning system. Uemura, in Paragraphs [0038]-[0039], successfully discloses: A distance r between the center of axis 15a and inner wall of the scroll casing 17 is expressed in the following formula: r=r0·exp(θx·tan α0), where r0 is a distance between the center of the axis 15 a and the inner wall of the scroll casing 17 at the scroll-starting portion 17c (also referred to as a nose portion); θx is an angle at a position of r measured from the scroll-starting portion 17 c; and α0 is a scroll-spreading angle expressed in the following formula: α0=tan−1(Com/Cou),
Likewise, in Paragraph [0040], Uemura further specifies: where Com is a radial component of an airflow speed Co generated by the fan 15, and Cou is a component in the rotational direction of the airflow speed Co, as illustrated in FIG. 7. The distance r takes the smallest value r0 at the scroll-starting portion 17c, and the scroll-ending portion 17d is defined as a position where the distance between the center of axis 15 a and the inner wall of the scroll casing 17 becomes larger than (0.9-1.1)·r, where r is a value calculated according to the formula above. The scroll angle θ is defined as the angle between the scroll-starting portion 17 c and the scroll-ending portion 17 d. The scroll angle θ is set to 210° in this embodiment.
Uemura more clearly describes the methodology of design theory and various changes and modifications later in the disclosure, and even specifically discloses calculations being made to determine the angle between a tangent line at a peripheral point of the fan.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of optimizing the positional and dimensional relationships existing between the angles and distances of the blower components, as taught by Uemura, in the air blower of Le/Wanezaki / Pettitt, in order to save the space and to increase the fan efficiency, as motivated by Uemura in Paragraph [0012].
Regarding the claimed limitations “the angle with said drive shaft is between 45 degrees and 60 degrees” (claim 4) and/or “said radial distance is between 61 and 82 millimeters” (claim 5), it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Le such that the angle is between 45 degrees and 60 degrees with said drive shaft and/or a radial distance is between 61 and 82 millimeters because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Wanezaki, and further in view of Pettitt, and further in view of Pouysegur (Pub. No.: US 2007/0237626 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt substantially disclose the air blower, as claimed and as detailed above. However, although the combination of Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt discloses the vast majority of Applicant's claimed elements, it is silent as to the specifics of the second part.
Nonetheless, Pouysegur in the same field of endeavor teaches another air ventilating device 1 for a heating, ventilating and/or air conditioning device 100, as stated in Paragraph [0031] for a motor vehicle.
Specifically, Pouysegur teaches: an electric motor (electric motor 4, as presented in Paragraphs [0032]-[0033]) comprising a drive shaft (shaft S4 which is being driven around an axis XX, as shown in annotated Figure 1b) and brushes (brushes, as discussed at page 4, lines 9-12) and on which a wheel (blower impeller 5, as presented in Paragraph [0034]) is mounted, said wheel (blower impeller 5, as presented in Paragraph [0034]) being able to generate a main air flow (main air flow 3a of the air flow 3 flows along the main channel 7, as detailed in Paragraph [0036]) in said heating, ventilating and/or air conditioning device; and a motor support (defined by casing 6, which is containing the motor 4, the blower impeller 5 and a motor cradle 9, is undoubtedly supporting the motor, as recited in Paragraph [0033], otherwise, the system cannot normally operate) in which said electric motor (motor 4, as seen immediately below) is housed.
Pouysegur, in Paragraph [0036], further notes: The air flow 3 produced by the blower impeller 5 travels along both the main channel 7 and the secondary channel 8. One part 3a of the air flow 3 flows along the main channel 7 to supply the rest of the ventilation, heating and/or air conditioning system, and another part 3b enters the secondary channel 8 via the inlet 11.
More specifically, in Paragraph [0035], Pouysegur also details: As illustrated in FIGS. 2, 4, and 6, the secondary air channel 8 has a peripheral wall 8a, an upper wall 8b, a lower wall 8c, an inlet 11, and an outlet 12. Said secondary channel 8 is located in the volute tongue 13. More precisely, part of the peripheral wall 8a of the secondary channel 8 is shared with that part of the peripheral wall 6a of the casing 6 which forms the volute tongue 13 and with part of the side wall 7c. The secondary channel 8 extends transversely along the peripheral wall 6a of the casing 6. The outlet 12 lies in a plane P containing the end 6c of the casing 6 and communicates with a duct 9a formed into the motor cradle 9 as can be seen in FIG. 1c, plane P being the plane of the paper in FIG. 4. This duct allows an air flow to reach and cool the electric motor 4.
PNG
media_image11.png
440
635
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Then, as best seen in annotated Figure 4, Pouysegur explicitly exhibits as how the secondary air channel 8 comprising a sharp edge at one of its ends.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a structural design of the secondary air channel having a sharp edge at one of its ends, as taught by Pouysegur, to the air blower of Le/ Wanezaki/ Pettitt, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of secondary air channel having a sharp edge at one of its ends to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the fluid flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that said second part would be further comprising a sharp edge at one of its ends, as instantly claimed.
13. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Wanezaki, and further in view of Pettitt, and further in view of Czulak et al. (hereinafter “Czulak”) (Patent No.: US 8,267,674 B2).
Regarding claims 8-9, Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt substantially disclose the air blower, as claimed and as detailed above. Although the combination of Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it is still silent as to the fact that said motor support comprises partitions extending from the motor cover in the direction of the brushes of said electric motor.
Nonetheless, the use of motor supports having the claimed structure is well-known in the art, as taught by Czulak. Czulak in the same field of endeavor teaches another motor housing, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 1 of Le, having a motor support portion defining a central axis and including a first end and a second end (see Abstract).
Czulak, in column 3 lines 7-25, explicitly teaches: The motor housing 22 includes an upper portion 62 having a plurality of slots or pockets 66 (only one of which is shown in FIG. 4) spaced about the central axis 38 at equal or unequal intervals in which the respective pairs of vibration isolation elements 54 are at least partially received. The motor housing 22 also includes a lower portion 70 coupled to the upper portion 62 (e.g., using a snap-fit, using fasteners, by welding, using adhesives, etc.) and having a corresponding plurality of fingers 74 that are engaged with the lower element 54 in each of the pairs of elements 54 to clamp the pairs of elements 54 between the upper portion 62 and the lower portion 70 of the motor housing 22, thereby axially securing the motor 18 to the motor housing 22. With continued reference to FIG. 4, a combination of the upper and lower portions 62, 70 of the motor housing 22 defines a motor support portion 102 having a first, at least partially open end 230 and a second, closed end 234 defining the central axis 38 therebetween. The motor support portion 102 includes a cavity 238 in which the motor 18 is positioned.
PNG
media_image12.png
693
755
media_image12.png
Greyscale
However, most important aspect in Czulak is his specific arrangement and/or structure of the lower portion 70, as shown immediately below, that is coupled to the upper portion 62 and having plurality of partitions that are clearly extending from the motor cover 70 or closed end 234 in an axial direction or in a direction parallel the central axis or in a direction toward the a top end 98 of the motor or in direction of brushes and near brushes.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using partitions at the motor cover, as taught by Czulak, to the air blower of Le/ Wanezaki/ Pettitt, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of a cover including a plurality of partitions in blower assemblies, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the fluid flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the motor support would be further comprising partitions that would be further extending from the motor cover in a direction of the brushes of said electric motor and/or each partition would be further arranged near one of said brushes of said electric motor, as instantly claimed.
14. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Wanezaki, and further in view of Pettitt, and further in view of Le Goff (Pub. No.: US 2014/0314598 A1).
Regarding claims 13-15, Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt substantially disclose the air blower, as claimed and as detailed above. However, although the combination of Le, Wanezaki and Pettitt discloses the vast majority of Applicant's claimed elements, it does not explicitly disclose specifics regarding studs.
Nonetheless, the use of studs in a vibro-acoustic decoupling device is well known in the art, as taught by Le Goff.
Le Goff in the same field of endeavor teaches another decoupling means 32, which as stated in Paragraph [0052], “may be produced in any appropriate fashion. In the example shown, the decoupling means 32 comprise six studs 42 made of a flexible plastic material, preferably a natural or synthetic elastomer. Preferably, the six studs 42 are arranged on two separate planes, being offset angularly in relation to each other”.
PNG
media_image13.png
604
538
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Le Goff, in Paragraph [0054], explicitly teaches that: According to the configuration shown, the decoupling means 32 are securely fixed to a ring 45 which carries on an upper face three decoupling studs 42 placed at intervals of 120° to each other, and on a lower face three decoupling studs 42 placed at intervals of 120° to each other. Furthermore, advantageously, the three decoupling studs 42 arranged on the lower face of the ring 45 are also offset by 60° in relation to the decoupling studs 42 arranged on the upper face of the ring 45.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using studs, as taught by Le Goff, to the air blower of Le/ Wanezaki/ Pettitt, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of a base including a a plurality of studs, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to further control the reduction of vibrations associated with unbalance and the reduction of noise associated with the motor and/or to further preserve the rigidity. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Furthermore, with specific regard to the limitation “thermoplastic elastomer”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a compound since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (or material compound) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the base would be further comprising one or more studs with thermoplastic elastomer ribs located thereon and/or each stud would be further associated with two thermoplastic elastomer ribs and/or each of the two thermoplastic elastomer ribs would be further arranged on each of two sides of the stud and/or a rigid finger would be further engaged with a thermoplastic elastomer rib on each side of the stud when the motor cover being arranged on the base and/or the one or more studs would be further being made from a thermoplastic elastomer, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/17/2025, with respect to claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11 have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Further, the Examiner notes that the newly applied reference addresses the applicant's arguments as set forth in the above rejections.
Conclusion
16. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST. 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 on 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 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/L.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3746