Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that Eccles fails to teach or suggest “a rotor body overmolded to encapsulate the magnet between the rotor body and roto shaft core.” Again, the applicant overlooks that sleeve 120 fully covers the magnet 110 and is molded to the shaft with at least the use of the fillers 305, 306, 307, 308.
Further, with respect to claim 11, the Applicant argues their additional limitation that Lambers fails to teach or suggest the limitation “a second plurality of protrusions extending in an axial direction and each having a radial inner extent and a radial outer extent located between the magnet inner radial side and the magnet outer radial side.” Lambers depicts in at least figure 1, that the protrusions extend in both an axial and radial direction. These protrusions have a radially inner extent, the slope on each protrusion 3, (see figure 1 marked below) and a radially outer extent, the top of the protrusion 3 (se figure 1 marked below). As Lambers teaches the above-recited limitations, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al (US 20170089354 A1) in view of Eccles et al (US 20150022041 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Shi teaches a rotor assembly comprising: a rotor shaft core (fig. 2, rotor assembly marked below) defining a through hole (fig. 2, area inside of circle) configured to receive a shaft (fig. 2 shaft 40); a magnet (fig. 4, magnet 41); an impeller coupled to the rotor body (paragraph 21 “The rotor assembly 50 includes an impeller and a rotor”); an upper bearing (fig. 4, first bearing 42) defining a through hole (fig. 4, first hole 421) in axial alignment with the through hole of the rotor shaft core; and a lower bearing (fig. 4, second bearing 43) defining a through hole (fig. 4, second hole 431) in axial alignment with the through hole of the rotor shaft core.
Shi does not teach “a rotor body overmolded onto the rotor shaft core to encapsulate the magnet between the rotor body and the rotor shaft core… wherein the rotor shaft core includes a first plurality of protrusions that extends radially outward toward the magnet enabling a portion of the rotor body to be located between the magnet and the rotor shaft core.”
Eccles teaches a rotor body overmolded onto the rotor shaft core to encapsulate the magnet between the rotor body and the rotor shaft core (fig. 2, sleeve 120) wherein the rotor shaft core includes a first plurality of protrusions that extends radially outward toward the magnet enabling a portion of the rotor body to be located between the magnet and the rotor shaft core (see figure 2, shaft’s first layer 140 extends toward the magnets 110)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the housing and shaft of Shi with overmolded rotor of Eccles in order to further insulate the electronic components from ingress of water.
PNG
media_image1.png
802
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shi Figure 4
With respect to claim 2, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches wherein the upper bearing and the lower bearing are supported by the rotor body and configured to rotate about the shaft (paragraph 23 “the first outer surface 423 is fixed to the injection molded layer of the second part 502 by injection molding.” and paragraph 24 “the second outer surface 433 may be fixed to the second part 502 directly or indirectly, and the second inner surface 432 may be arranged to be in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the shaft 40 or with a clearance from the outer peripheral surface of the shaft 40.”).
With respect to claim 3, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches wherein the through hole of the rotor shaft core has a smaller diameter than the upper bearing (Fig. 4, diameter of first bearing 42 is larger than that of the shaft hole) and the lower bearing such that the shaft contacts the upper bearing and the lower bearing without contacting the rotor shaft core (Fig. 4, second bearing 43 has larger diameter than that of the shaft).
With respect to claim 4, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches wherein the rotor shaft core includes an axial portion and a radial portion that extends radially outward from the axial portion to support the magnet (see figure 4 marked above).
With respect to claim 5, Shi teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “wherein the axial portion of the rotor shaft core includes a first plurality of protrusions that extend radially outward toward the magnet.”
Eccles teaches wherein the axial portion of the rotor shaft core includes a first plurality of protrusions (Fig. 2, first layer 140) that extend radially outward toward the magnet (fig. 2, first layer 140 extends radially toward magnet 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the shaft of Shi with the rotor with the axial protrusions of Eccles in order to increase the surface area between the shaft and magnet thereby increasing the friction and therefore the hold between the two elements.
With respect to claim 6, Shi teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “wherein the rotor body occupies areas between the first plurality of protrusions.”
Eccles teaches wherein the rotor body occupies areas between the first plurality of protrusions (Fig. 2, rotor body of the magnet 110 occupies the area outside of the protrusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with the rotor body between the protrusions of Eccles in order to increase the surface area between the shaft and magnet thereby increasing the friction and therefore the hold between the two elements.
With respect to claim 9, Shi in view of Eccle teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches wherein the rotor shaft core includes an enlarged upper rim that receives the upper bearing (Fig. 4, area where bearing 42 is seated) and an enlarged lower rim that receives the lower bearing (Fig. 4, area where bearing 43 is seated).
With respect to claim 22, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches the rotor body is a unitary structure (fig. 4, rotor 4 appears to be unitary).
Claims 7-8, 11-15, 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Eccles in further view of Lambers (US 20160241097 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “wherein the radial portion of the rotor shaft core includes a second plurality of protrusions that extend axially toward the magnet.”
Lambers teaches wherein the radial portion of the rotor shaft core includes a second plurality of protrusions that extend axially toward the magnet (Fig. 1, there are multiple projections 3 on the follower 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the shaft of Shi and magnets arrangement of Eccles with the second axial protrusions of Lambers in order to increase the surface area between the shaft and magnet thereby increasing the friction and therefore the hold between the two elements.
With respect to claim 8, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “wherein the rotor body occupies areas between the second plurality of protrusions.”
Lambers teaches wherein the rotor body occupies areas between the second plurality of protrusions (Fig. 1, follower 2 is inside the rotor body of magnet segments 5 and sleeve 12 occupies the area outside of the protrusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with magnet arrangement of Eccles with the rotor body between the second protrusions of Lambers in order to increase the surface area between the shaft and magnet thereby increasing the friction and therefore the hold between the two elements.
With respect to claim 11, Shi discloses a rotor assembly comprising: a magnet extending between a magnet inner radial side and a magnet outer radial side (fig. 4 magnet 41); a rotor shaft core (Fig. 2 rotor assembly marked above) defining a through hole configured to receive a shaft (fig. 4, core receives shaft 40 through a hole), the rotor shaft core maintaining concentricity between the magnet and the through hole (see figure 4 above, rotor shaft holds the magnets); and an impeller coupled to the rotor body (paragraph 22 “ In this embodiment, the rotor 4 and the lower plate 53 are integrally formed by injection molding, the upper plate 51 and the blades 52 are integrally formed by injection molding. In this way, the upper plate 51 and the blades 52 have a low requirement for materials, which may save costs and facilitate the demolding of these two portions as well. Mounting grooves 532 are formed in the lower plate 53, and the blades 52 are assembled to the lower plate 53 corresponding to the mounting grooves 532 and are fixed to the lower plate 53 integrally by welding”).
Shi does not teach “the rotor shaft core comprising a first plurality of protrusion extending in a radial direction and a second plurality of protrusions extending in an axial direction;…a rotor body overmolded onto the rotor shaft core to encapsulate the magnet between the rotor body and the rotor shaft core… wherein the rotor shaft core includes a first plurality of protrusions that extends radially outward toward the magnet, and the second plurality of protrusions extends axially toward the magnet.”
Eccles teaches a rotor body overmolded onto the rotor shaft core to encapsulate the magnet between the rotor body and the rotor shaft core (fig. 2, sleeve 120) wherein the rotor shaft core includes a first plurality of protrusions (fig. 2, first layer 140) that extends radially outward toward the magnet enabling a portion of the rotor body to be located between the magnet and the rotor shaft core (see at least figure 2, first layer 140 extend toward the magnet 110).
Eccles does not teach “a second plurality of protrusions extending in an axial direction and the second plurality of protrusions extends axially toward the magnet.”
Lambers teaches a second plurality of protrusions extending in an axial direction (Fig. 1, there are multiple projections 3 on the follower 2) and the second plurality of protrusions extends axially toward the magnet (Fig. 1, there are multiple projections 3 on the follower 2 that extend toward the magnet) and each having a radial inner extent and a radial outer extent located between the magnet inner radial side and the magnet outer radial side.
PNG
media_image2.png
400
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lambers Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the housing and shaft of Shi with the rotor body of Eccles with the overmolded rotor of Lambers in order to further insulate the electronic components from ingress of water.
With respect to claim 12, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches an upper bearing configured to support an upper end of the shaft (Fig. 4, first bearing 42); and a lower bearing configured to support a lower end of the shaft (fig. 4, second bearing 43).
With respect to claim 13, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches the upper and lower bearings are supported by the rotor body such that the upper and lower bearings rotate with the rotor body (paragraph 23 “the first outer surface 423 is fixed to the injection molded layer of the second part 502 by injection molding.” and paragraph 24 “the second outer surface 433 may be fixed to the second part 502 directly or indirectly, and the second inner surface 432 may be arranged to be in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the shaft 40 or with a clearance from the outer peripheral surface of the shaft 40.”).
With respect to claim 14, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches wherein the rotor shaft core includes an enlarged upper rim that receives the upper bearing (Fig. 4, area where bearing 42 is seated) and an enlarged lower rim that receives the lower bearing (Fig. 4, area where bearing 43 is seated).
With respect to claim 15, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Shi further teaches wherein the upper and lower bearings are spaced apart from the rotor body such that the rotor body rotates relative to the upper and lower bearings (paragraph 25 “he rotor assembly 50 rotates around the shaft 40 by means of the first bearing 42 and the second bearing 43”).
With respect to claim 23, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “teaches the second plurality of protrusions contact an axial end of the magnet.”
Lamber teaches the second plurality of protrusions contact an axial end of the magnet (Fig. 1, there are multiple projections 3 on the follower 2 that are toward the axial end of the magnet 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with magnet arrangement of Eccles with the rotor body between the second protrusions of Lambers in order to increase the surface area between the shaft and magnet thereby increasing the friction and therefore the hold between the two elements.
With respect to claim 25, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “a radial outermost extent of the first plurality of projections is within a radially innermost envelope of the magnet.”
Lamber teaches a radial outermost extent of the first plurality of projections is within a radially innermost envelope of the magnet (see figure 1, projections 3 are within the radial envelope of the magnet 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with magnet arrangement of Eccles with the rotor body between the second protrusions of Lambers in order to increase the surface area between the shaft and magnet thereby increasing the friction and therefore the hold between the two elements.
With respect to claim 26, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the second plurality of protrusions each having a first end and a second end, the second plurality of protrusions extending from a base toward the magnet.”
Lamber teaches the second plurality of protrusions each having a first end and a second end, the second plurality of protrusions extending from a base toward the magnet (fig. 1, protrusions 3 have a first end on left of page and second end on right of page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with magnet arrangement of Eccles with the rotor body between the second protrusions of Lambers in order to increase the surface area between the shaft and magnet thereby increasing the friction and therefore the hold between the two elements.
With respect to claim 27, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the first end of each of the plurality of protrusions located at the base and the second end of each of the plurality of protrusions configured to support the magnet.”
Lamber teaches the first end of each of the plurality of protrusions located at the base and the second end of each of the plurality of protrusions configured to support the magnet (see figure 1, protrusions 3 support magnet and are located at the base).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with magnet arrangement of Eccles with the rotor body between the second protrusions of Lambers in order to increase the surface area between the shaft and magnet thereby increasing the friction and therefore the hold between the two elements.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al in view of Eccles in further view of Takarai (US 20160248292 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Shi in view of Eccles teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach wherein “the rotor body and the impeller form an integral one-piece structure.”
Takarai teaches the rotor body and the impeller form an integral one-piece structure (Fig. 1 and paragraph 36 “rotor 18 is formed integrally with impeller 16 by injection molding of synthetic resin”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the housing and shaft of Shi in view of Eccles with one-piece rotor and impeller of Takarai in order to further insulate the electronic components from ingress of water.
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers further in view of Childe et al (US 20070230839 A1)
With respect to claim 16, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “a flexible bearing casing around one or more of the upper and lower bearings.”
Childe teaches a flexible bearing casing around one or more of the upper and lower bearings. (paragraph 26 “In accordance with the invention, each bearing housing 11, 12 includes a flexible deformable wall 14, 15”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with the rotor of Eccles and Lambers with the flexible bearing housing of Childe in order to increase the lifespan of the motor by increasing the motor’s resiliency from external impacts by having the flexible housing for the bearing.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al in view of Eccles in view of Lambers in further view of Takarai (US 20160248292 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach wherein “the rotor body and the impeller form an integral one-piece structure.”
Takarai teaches the rotor body and the impeller form an integral one-piece structure (Fig. 1 and paragraph 36 “rotor 18 is formed integrally with impeller 16 by injection molding of synthetic resin”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the housing and shaft of Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers with the projections of Lambers with one-piece rotor and impeller of Takarai in order to further insulate the electronic components from ingress of water.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers in further in view of Mondin et al (US 20180316252 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “discloses wherein the rotor body is a two-piece structure including an inner body portion positioned between the magnet and the rotor shaft core and an outer body portion positioned around the magnet.”
Mondin teaches wherein the rotor body is a two-piece structure including an inner body portion (Fig. 3 inner protective layer 12) positioned between the magnet and the rotor shaft core and an outer body portion positioned around the magnet (Fig. 3, outer protective layer 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with the rotor of Eccles and Lambers with the two-piece rotor body of Mondin in order to more securely fix the magnet to the shaft while also further insulating the rotor’s exposure to ingress from fluid.
Claims 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Eccles in view Lambers in further view of Johnson et al (US 20060055264 A1).
With respect to claim 19, Shi teach a method of manufacturing a rotor assembly comprising the steps of: providing a rotor shaft core defining a through hole (see figure 4 marked above); positioning the rotor shaft core in a mold (see quoted paragraph below, as the second part requires injection molding, the use of a mold in inherent to the process) with a magnet disposed around the rotor shaft core (paragraph 22 “the second part 502 includes an injection molded layer, and the second part 502 is formed by injection molding using an injection molding material taking the permanent magnet 41 and the first bearing 42 as injection molding inserts.”) and blocking the through hole (use of injection molding would require the hole to be blocked in order for the resin to fill, see paragraph 22 cited above);
Shi does not teach “the rotor shaft core including a first plurality of protrusions that extends radially outward from a longitudinal axis of the rotor shaft core; … molding a rotor body and an impeller on the rotor shaft core… the first plurality of protrusions enabling a portion of the rotor body to be located between the magnet and the rotor shaft core.”
Eccles teaches the rotor shaft core includes a first plurality of protrusions (fig. 2, first layer 140) that extends radially outward from a longitudinal axis of the rotor shaft core the first plurality of protrusions enabling a portion of the rotor body to be located between the magnet and the rotor shaft core (see at least figure 2, first layer 140 interact with the magnet 110 in order to secure the magnet to the assembly).
Eccles does not teach “molding a rotor body and an impeller on the rotor shaft core.”
Johnson teaches molding a rotor body and an impeller on the rotor shaft core (paragraph 45 “In this example, the rotor 26 and impeller 14 are integrally constructed as a one-piece rotor assembly by injection moulding of a polymer around the magnet assembly 32 and bearing 36.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the forming of the rotor shaft core and mold of Shi in view of Eccles with molded one-piece rotor and impeller of Johnson in order to further insulate the electronic components from ingress of water.
With respect to claim 20, Shi in view of Eccles teach the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach wherein “the rotor body and the impeller form an integral one-piece structure.”
Johnson teaches the rotor body and the impeller form an integral one-piece structure (Fig. 7 and paragraph 45 “In this example, the rotor 26 and impeller 14 are integrally constructed as a one-piece rotor assembly by injection moulding of a polymer around the magnet assembly 32 and bearing 36.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the housing and shaft of Shi with one-piece rotor of Eccles and the impeller of Lambers further with the structure of the rotor of Johnson in order to further insulate the electronic components from ingress of water.
Claim 21 and 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Eccles in view of Lambers in view of Johnson in further view of Mondin.
With respect to claim 21, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Takarai teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the molding step comprises: molding an inner body portion of the rotor body between the magnet and the rotor shaft core; and after molding the inner body portion, molding an outer body portion of the rotor body onto to inner body portion to encapsulate the magnet between the outer and inner body portions.”
Mondin teaches wherein the molding step comprises: molding an inner body portion (Fig. 3, inner protective layer 12 and claim 1, “a first inner protective layer obtained by a first injection moulding phase”) of the rotor body between the magnet and the rotor shaft core (Fig. 3, inner protective layer 12 is between magnet 2 and shaft 3); and after molding the inner body portion, molding an outer body portion of the rotor body onto to inner body portion to encapsulate the magnet between the outer and inner body portions (claim 1, “a second phase of coating the first inner protective layer of the rotor with a second outer protective layer obtained by a second injection moulding phase;”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with the rotor of Eccles in view of Lambers and Takarai with the two-piece rotor body of Mondin in order to more securely fix the magnet to the shaft while also further insulating the rotor’s exposure to ingress from fluid.
With respect to claim 24, Shi in view of Eccles in view of Takarai teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the magnet having an axial length, and wherein the second plurality of projections are completely outside of the axial length of the magnet.”
Mondin teaches the magnet having an axial length, and wherein the second plurality of projections are completely outside of the axial length of the magnet (see figures 2-4, concentric annular rims 16, 17 are outside the axial length of the magnet 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine shaft of Shi with the rotor of Eccles in view of Takarai with the additional axially outside protrusions of Mondin in order to more securely fix the magnet to the shaft while also further insulating the rotor’s exposure to ingress from fluid.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached on (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834