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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 04 February 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-20 were previously pending, with claims 2-7 and 12-17 being withdrawn from consideration; claims 54-56 were added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-20 and 54-56 are now pending in the application, with claims 2-7 and 12-17 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 04 February 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 8-9 of the Remarks) alleges that the proposed modification of Hessenberg in view of Linnenbrock would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of the device. Firstly, it is noted that no explanation or evidence relating to either of these things is presented in the argument. The argument instead appears to allege that the first proposed modification to Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, would be contradicted/undone by the modification in view of Linnenbrock, because the first modification allegedly requires that the rotor, the coupler, and the fan be formed monolithically. However, the proposed modification in view of Iwase suggests the rotor and coupler being formed into a single member, not necessarily the fan. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive because it mischaracterizes the previous grounds of rejection.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 9-11 of the Remarks) alleges that the proposed modifications of Hessenberg in view of both Iwase and Linnenbrock are based on improper hindsight. While the argument alleges that the rejection only considers parts of the claimed invention rather than the invention as a whole, no explanation or evidence is presented in support of these allegations. Thus, the Applicant's argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Further, it is noted that all grounds of rejection addressed in this argument were affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the decision mailed on 21 August 2025. As such, this argument is unpersuasive and said previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 11-13 of the Remarks) alleges that the “Examiner’s logic is circular” and the proposed modifications lack any rationale. However, this argument simply repeats the previous two arguments, including mischaracterizing the previous grounds of rejection. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (page 13 of the Remarks) alleges that new claims 54-56 are allowable by virtue of their dependencies. This is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above. Further, the argument alleges support for the new limitations exists at various point in the specification. However, the specification as originally filed does not disclose any “living hinge” as now recited in claim 54. As such, new claim 54 necessitates new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Rotor with Coupler and Mounting Hub for Fan.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 54 recites the limitation “the coupler is a living hinge”. The term “living hinge” appears nowhere in the application as originally filed, and the generally known definition of this term does not apply to any component of the present invention. While the two halves of the snap-fit connection are disclosed as deflecting during engagement, neither side of said connection constitutes a “hinge”. As such, claim 54 constitutes new matter. Further, it is unclear what additional limitation(s) might be implied by this term, besides the functional limitation that follows it. Thus, in the grounds of rejection below, this term has been interpreted as requiring only the ability to deflect as recited later in the claim.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 18-20, and 54-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hessenberg et al. (US 2014/0125158 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Hessenberg”, in view of Iwase et al. (US 2006/0273679 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Iwase”, Linnenbrock et al. (US 2012/0183417 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Linnenbrock”, and Fukushima (US 2007/0236091 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Fukushima”.
Regarding claim 1, Hessenberg discloses an electric motor [14,114] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0017-0018) comprising:
a stator [38] (fig. 2; ¶ 0019); and
a rotor assembly [34] received in the stator [38], the rotor assembly [34] including a shaft [42] including an outer surface (fig. 2-4; ¶ 0019-0020),
a rotor core [50] defining a central aperture [66] (fig. 3-4; ¶ 0019-0020),
a fan [74] (fig. 3-4; ¶ 0021), and
PNG
media_image1.png
339
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the shaft [42] is pressed into the rotor core [50], the outer surface of the shaft [42] being directly engaged with the rotor core [50] in the central aperture [66] (fig. 3-4; ¶ 0020; “splines, knurls, press-fitting, adhesives, or the like”).
Hessenberg does not disclose a rotor molding that is molded to the rotor core [50], a coupler formed on the rotor molding, or a corresponding mounting hub formed on the fan [74]; or wherein the shaft [42] is pressed into the rotor core [50] after the rotor molding is molded to the rotor core [50].
Iwase discloses an electric motor [50] comprising a stator [52] and a rotor assembly [10] received in the stator [52] (fig. 1-6; ¶ 0022-0023), the rotor assembly [10] including a shaft [54] including an outer surface, a rotor core [1] defining a central aperture [3] (fig. 2; ¶ 0023-0025),
a rotor molding [rm] that is molded to the rotor core [1] (fig. 2; ¶ 0024; the molded components are integrally formed from the “resin molding”),
a fan [20] (fig. 2-4; ¶ 0024-0025),
a coupler [21c] formed on the rotor molding [rm] (fig. 2; ¶ 0024-0025; the resin portion extending axially from the surface of the rotor corresponds to the coupler of the present invention), and
a corresponding mounting hub [21h] formed on the fan [20] (fig. 2; ¶ 0024-0025; the resin portion extending axially from the surface of the fan corresponds to the mounting hub of the present invention); and
PNG
media_image2.png
471
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the shaft [54] is pressed into the rotor core [1] after the rotor molding [rm] is molded to the rotor core [1] (fig. 2-4; ¶ 0025; while disclosed, it is noted that the limitation following the term “after” is not given patentable weight as it recites only an order of assembly, i.e. a method step, that does not imply any additional structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotor assembly of Hessenberg having a rotor molding for coupling the fan and magnets as taught by Iwase, in order to form the rotor assembly into a single member thereby reduce the number of assembly steps and reduce the manufacturing costs (¶ 0006-0009 of Iwase).
Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, still does not disclose that the fan [20] is affixed to the rotor molding [rm] by connecting the coupler [21c] and the mounting hub [21h] after the shaft [54] is pressed into the rotor core [1] (Iwase discloses an integral, single-piece, structure rather than the two-piece structure of the present application; again, it is noted that the limitation following the term “after” is not given patentable weight as it recites only an order of assembly, i.e. a method step, that does not imply any additional structure).
Linnenbrock discloses an electric motor [30] comprising a rotor molding [10] having a coupler [13] formed thereon, and a fan [20] with a corresponding mounting hub [22] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0032-0033), wherein the fan [20] is affixed to the rotor molding [10] by connecting the coupler [13] and the mounting hub [22] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0033).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotor molding and fan of Hessenberg/Iwase from separate components coupled together as taught by Linnenbrock, in order to provide an easily detachable positive locking connection (¶ 0005 of Linnenbrock) thereby allowing for maintenance on or replacement of either component individually, reducing costs.
Further, it has been held that making a component separable, in this case for the purpose of reducing maintenance and/or replacement costs, instead of the integral structure disclosed in the prior art would have been a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Hessenberg, in view of Iwase and Linnenbrock, still does not disclose the shaft [42] being engaged by an interference fit.
Fukushima discloses a rotor [30] having a rotor core [31] defining a central aperture [3125] and a shaft [32] including an outer surface (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0028-0029); the outer surface of the shaft [32] being directly engaged with the central aperture [3125] by an interference fit (¶ 0029).
PNG
media_image4.png
405
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the rotor and shaft of Hessenberg using an interference fit as taught by Fukushima, in order to better secure the rotor in the proper orientation (¶ 0044, 0048, 0052 of Fukushima).
Regarding claim 8, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the electric motor of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Linnenbrock further discloses that the coupler [13] includes a lip [100] formed at a distal end, and the mounting hub [22] includes a ledge [200] that engages the lip [100] to secure the fan [20] to the rotor molding [10] (fig. 2-3, 4-5; ¶ 0033, 0034).
Regarding claim 9, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the electric motor of claim 8, as stated above, wherein Linnenbrock further discloses that the coupler [13] includes planar portions [110,120], and the mounting hub [22] includes linear portions [220,222] configured to engage the planar portions [110,120] to rotationally lock the fan [20] relative to the rotor molding [10] (fig. 2-3, 4-5; ¶ 0033-0034; the hooks/grooves are provided in “partially, sectionally or fully encircling form”, the former options provide circumferential surfaces that abut one another, preventing rotation).
Regarding claim 10, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the electric motor of claim 8, as stated above, wherein Linnenbrock further discloses that the coupler [13] includes a first beveled portion [bp1] that engages a second beveled portion [bp2] formed on the mounting hub [22] to hold the ledge [200] against the lip [100] (fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Hessenberg discloses a method of manufacturing an electric motor [14,114] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0017-0018), the method comprising:
pressing a shaft [42] into a rotor core [50], the shaft [42] including an outer surface that directly engages with the rotor core [50] in its central aperture [66] when pressed into the rotor core [50] (fig. 2-4; ¶ 0019-0020; “splines, knurls, press-fitting, adhesives, or the like”); and
receiving the rotor assembly [34] into a stator [38] (fig. 2; ¶ 0019).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hessenberg does not disclose molding a rotor molding to the rotor core [50] defining the central aperture [66], the rotor molding including a coupler formed thereon; or connecting the coupler to a mounting hub formed on the fan [74] to thereby affix the fan to the rotor molding and form the rotor assembly [34].
Iwase discloses a method of manufacturing an electric motor [50] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0022), the method comprising:
molding a rotor molding [rm] to a rotor core [1] defining a central aperture [3] (fig. 2; ¶ 0023-0024; the molded components are integrally formed from the “resin molding”), the rotor molding [rm] including a coupler [21c] formed thereon (fig. 2; ¶ 0024-0025; the resin portion extending axially from the surface of the rotor corresponds to the coupler of the present invention);
pressing a shaft [54] into the rotor core [1] (fig. 2-4; ¶ 0025);
receiving the rotor assembly [10] into a stator [52] (fig. 1-6; ¶ 0023); and
a mounting hub [21h] formed on a fan [20] to thereby affix the fan [20] to the rotor molding [rm] and form a rotor assembly [10] (fig. 2-4; ¶ 0024-0025; the resin portion extending axially from the surface of the fan corresponds to the mounting hub of the present invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
471
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotor assembly of Hessenberg having a rotor molding for coupling the fan and magnets as taught by Iwase, in order to form the rotor assembly into a single member thereby reduce the number of assembly steps and reduce the manufacturing costs (¶ 0006-0009 of Iwase).
Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, still does not disclose connecting the coupler [21c] to the mounting hub [21h] formed on the fan [20] (Iwase discloses an integral, single piece, structure rather than the two-piece structure of the present application).
Linnenbrock discloses an electric motor [30] comprising a rotor molding [10] having a coupler [13] formed thereon, and a fan [20] with a corresponding mounting hub [22] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0032-0033), wherein the fan [20] is affixed to the rotor molding [10] by connecting the coupler [13] and the mounting hub [22] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0033).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotor and fan of Hessenberg/Iwase from two separate components coupled together as taught by Linnenbrock, in order to provide an easily detachable positive locking connection (¶ 0005 of Linnenbrock) thereby allowing for maintenance on or replacement of either component individually, reducing costs.
Further, it has been held that making a component separable, in this case for the purpose of reducing maintenance and/or replacement costs, instead of the integral structure disclosed in the prior art would have been a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Hessenberg, in view of Iwase and Linnenbrock, still does not disclose the shaft [42] being engaged by an interference fit.
Fukushima discloses a rotor [30] having a rotor core [31] defining a central aperture [3125] and a shaft [32] including an outer surface (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0028-0029); the outer surface of the shaft [32] being directly engaged with the central aperture [3125] by an interference fit (¶ 0029).
PNG
media_image4.png
405
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the rotor and shaft of Hessenberg using an interference fit as taught by Fukushima, in order to better secure the rotor in the proper orientation (¶ 0044, 0048, 0052 of Fukushima).
Regarding claim 18, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the method of claim 11, as stated above, wherein Linnenbrock further discloses that the coupler [13] includes a lip [100] formed at a distal end, and the mounting hub [22] includes a ledge [200] that engages the lip [100] to secure the fan [20] to the rotor molding [10] (fig. 2-3, 4-5; ¶ 0033, 0034).
Regarding claim 19, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the method of claim 18, as stated above, wherein Linnenbrock further discloses that the coupler [13] includes planar portions [110,120], and the mounting hub [22] includes linear portions [220,222] configured to engage the planar portions [110,120] to rotationally lock the fan [20] relative to the rotor molding [10] (fig. 2-3, 4-5; ¶ 0033-0034; the hooks/grooves are provided in “partially, sectionally or fully encircling form”, the former options provide circumferential surfaces that abut one another, preventing rotation).
Regarding claim 20, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the method of claim 18, as stated above, wherein Linnenbrock further discloses that the coupler [13] includes a first beveled portion [bp1] that engages a second beveled portion [bp2] formed on the mounting hub [22] to hold the ledge [200] against the lip [100] (fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 54, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the electric motor of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Linnenbrock further discloses that the coupler [13] is a living hinge configured to deflect in response to connecting the mounting hub [22] to the coupler [13] (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0033; “detent hooks” are designed to deflect in response to an applied force).
Regarding claim 55, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the electric motor of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Linnenbrock further discloses that the coupler [13] and mounting hub [22] form a permanent snap-fit connection (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0033; the current application does not disclose any difference in structure between permanent and temporary snap-fit connections).
Regarding claim 56, Hessenberg, in view of Iwase, Linnenbrock, and Fukushima, discloses the electric motor of claim 8, as stated above, wherein the lip [100] is a protrusion extending in an outboard direction away from the shaft, and wherein the ledge [200] extends in an inboard direction towards the shaft (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0033-0034; the wall of the lip is inclined radially outward, and the flange of the ledge extends radially inward).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Fung et al. (US 2017/0373569 A1) discloses a rotor of an electric motor, having an integrally molded fan.
Ishiguro (US 2011/0293448 A1) discloses a rotor of an electric motor, having an integrally molded resin fan.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 571-270-5112. 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834