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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the two independent claims of 1 and 14 by adding the following limitation to both claims: “wherein the heat-dissipating hole is disposed in an inner area of the outer circumference of the impeller.” Applicant has concluded:
PNG
media_image1.png
171
987
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As it be shown below when revisiting claim 1, Wang, L. (CN 209516803 U), one of the cited references in the Non-final Office action dated 10/14/2025, does disclose the added new limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180266426 A1) in view of Wang, L. (CN 209516803 U).
PNG
media_image2.png
691
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a fan motor (fig. 1; see also the title: “Fan Motor”) comprising:
a stator assembly (21, fig. 1) formed in a cylindrical shape (annular stator, para [0031]) extending in one direction (rotation axis, fig. 1) and having a plurality of teeth (three teeth facing the rotor 22, fig. 1) therein;
a vane hub (40, fig. 1) formed to surround a side surface and an upper end portion of the stator assembly (see fig. 1), and having vanes (42, fig. 1) protruding from an outer circumferential surface thereof, and a through hole (45, fig. 1) formed through an upper end portion thereof;
a shaft (23, fig. 1) coupled to the stator assembly and the through hole of the vane hub, to be rotatable relative to the stator assembly and the vane hub (implied); and
an impeller (31, fig. 1) disposed on an upper side of the vane hub, and coupled to the shaft ( via hole 312, fig. 1) to rotate together with the shaft, wherein
each of the teeth extends in the one direction (axial direction) along an inner circumferential surface of the stator assembly and wound with a coil (implied, see also para [0095]: “A coil wound on the motor part is usually coated with enamel.”), wherein
the stator assembly has heat-dissipating channels each formed in a space defined by the inner circumferential surface of the stator assembly and two adjacent teeth (see empty spaces between adjacent teeth in fig. 1), wherein
the vane hub includes a heat-dissipating hole (43, fig. 1) formed through an upper end portion thereof with being spaced apart from the through hole (see fig. 1).
Lee does not disclose: the heat-dissipating hole overlaps one of the heat-dissipating channels in the one direction, and wherein the heat-dissipating hole is disposed in an inner area of the outer circumference of the impeller.
PNG
media_image3.png
674
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang discloses an electric hair dryer comprising a high speed motor (see the invention title), wherein, as shown in fig. 2, above, the heat-dissipating hole overlaps one of the heat-dissipating channels in the one direction, and wherein the heat-dissipating hole is disposed in an inner area of the outer circumference of the impeller.
For efficient cooling of the stator of a high speed motor for a hair dryer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: the heat-dissipating hole overlaps one of the heat-dissipating channels in the one direction, and wherein the heat-dissipating hole is disposed in an inner area of the outer circumference of the impeller.
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified by Wang discloses the fan motor of claim 1, Lee further discloses wherein the heat-dissipating hole is provided in plurality in the single vane hub (see multiple holes 43 in fig. 1), and wherein the number of heat-dissipating holes provided in the single vane hub is more than the number of teeth disposed in the single stator assembly.
Lee does not disclose: the number of heat-dissipating holes provided in the single vane hub is equal to the number of teeth disposed in the single stator assembly.
Choosing the number of heat dissipating holes is a result effective variable and selecting a proper number is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art. Two parameters that play key role in selecting the number of holes are the amount of heat that needs to be removed and the mechanical integrity and strength of the vane hub (see para [0039]: “These cooling flow path inlets 113 may be arranged in various arrangements and shapes as long as the rigidity of the bearing support 112 and the rigidity of the entire motor mount 111 can be maintained.”).
To ensure proper rigidity of the vane hub and proper cooling of the stator, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: the number of heat-dissipating holes provided in the single vane hub is equal to the number of teeth disposed in the single stator assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified by Wang and further modified in claim 2 discloses the fan motor of claim 2, wherein the number of teeth provided in the single stator assembly is a multiple of three (there are three teeth- see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified by Wang discloses the fan motor of claim 1, further comprising a housing (34 and 11, fig. 1) surrounding side surfaces of the vane hub and the impeller, wherein a main flow path (main flow, annotated fig. 3) is defined in a space between an outer circumferential surface of the impeller and an inner circumferential surface of the housing and a space between an outer circumferential surface of the vane hub and an inner circumferential surface of the housing, wherein a returning flow path (return flow, annotated fig. 3) is defined in the heat-dissipating channel, the heat-dissipating hole, and a space between the vane hub and the impeller, and wherein the returning flow path joins the main flow path (see annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
489
508
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified by Wang discloses the fan motor of claim 1, but is silent about: wherein a cross-sectional area of the heat-dissipating hole is larger than or equal to a cross-sectional area of the heat-dissipating channel.
As discussed regarding claim 2, choosing the number of holes and their sizes are result effective variables that depend on the amount of generated heat and mechanical strength of the vane hub.
For proper heat removal from the stator while ensuring the rigidity of the vane hub, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: a cross-sectional area of the heat-dissipating hole is larger than or equal to a cross-sectional area of the heat-dissipating channel.
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified by Wang and further modified in claim 5 discloses the fan motor of claim 5, wherein an area of an outer circumference of a space defined between the vane hub and the impeller is larger than or equal to a sum of cross-sectional areas of the plurality of heat-dissipating holes (implied because the main flow needs more cross-sectional area; this is also shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified by Wang and further modified in claim 5 discloses the fan motor of claim 5, but does not disclose: wherein a shortest distance between an outer circumference of the vane hub and an outer circumference of the heat-dissipating hole is 1 mm or more.
However, determining a range for such a distance is a design parameter and that task is within the skills of those having ordinary skills in the art.
For proper heat dissipation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: a shortest distance between an outer circumference of the vane hub and an outer circumference of the heat-dissipating hole is 1 mm or more.
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified by Wang and further modified in claim 7 discloses the fan motor of claim 7, but does not disclose wherein a shortest distance between an outer circumference of the through hole and an outer circumference of the heat-dissipating hole is 1 mm or more.
However, determining a range for such a distance is a design parameter and that task is within the skills of those having ordinary skills in the art.
For proper heat dissipation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: a shortest distance between an outer circumference of the through hole and an outer circumference of the heat-dissipating hole is 1 mm or more.
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified by Wang and further modified in claim 8 discloses the fan motor of claim 8, further comprising a bearing (174, fig. 1) disposed between the shaft and the vane hub, coupled to each of the shaft and the vane hub, and formed in an annular shape.
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Wang and further modified in claim 8 discloses the fan motor of claim 9, but does not disclose: wherein a shortest distance between an outer circumference of the bearing and an outer circumference of the heat- dissipating hole is 1 mm or more.
As discussed previously, determining a range for such a distance is a design parameter and that task is within the skills of those having ordinary skills in the art.
For proper heat dissipation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: a shortest distance between an outer circumference of the bearing and an outer circumference of the heat- dissipating hole is 1 mm or more.
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified by Wang in claim 1 discloses the fan motor of claim 1, but is silent about: wherein a cross-section of the heat- dissipating hole is rounded rather than angular.
Determining the shape of an air vent is a design parameter and that task is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art as evidenced by Wang (see air guide heat dissipation holes 230 in fig. 3, Wang).
PNG
media_image5.png
426
505
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For efficient cooling of the stator, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: a cross-section of the heat- dissipating hole has a shape corresponding to a cross-section of the heat- dissipating channel.
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified by Wang in claim 1 discloses the fan motor of claim 1, while implied, Lee is silent about: wherein a cross-section of the heat- dissipating hole has a shape corresponding to a cross-section of the heat- dissipating channel.
However, this is another design choice task that can be decided by a person having ordinary skills in the art as evidenced by Wang (see fig. 3). In particular, in fig. 3 Wang teaches a round hole that corresponds to the heat dissipating channel of the stator.
For efficient cooling of the stator, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: a cross-section of the heat- dissipating hole is rounded rather than angular.
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified by Wang discloses the fan motor of claim 1, wherein the vane hub is formed such that an outer edge of an upper end portion thereof is chamfered (see para [0013]: “The impeller may include a mixed-flow type fan, and the diffuser may be a mixed-flow type diffuser including an inclined surface that is inclined downward with respect to a center of the impeller.”; see also the contour of the diffuser in fig. 3).
Claim(s) 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180266426 A1) in view of Wang, L., (CN 209516803 U) and further in view of Carlucci, V., (US 20080116753 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lee, as modified by Wang regarding claim 1, discloses a fan motor including a stator assembly, a vane hub, a shaft, and an impeller, wherein the stator assembly is formed in a cylindrical shape extending in one direction and has a plurality of teeth therein, wherein the vane hub is formed to surround a side surface and an upper end portion of the stator assembly, and includes a through hole and a heat- dissipating hole formed through the upper end portion thereof, the through hole and the heat-dissipating hole being spaced apart from each other (see fig. 1), wherein the shaft is coupled to the stator assembly and the through hole of the vane hub, wherein the impeller is disposed on an upper side of the vane hub and coupled to the shaft, wherein each of the teeth extends in the one direction along an inner circumferential surface of the stator assembly and wound with a coil, wherein the stator assembly has heat-dissipating channels each formed in a space defined by the inner circumferential surface of the stator assembly and two adjacent teeth, wherein the heat-dissipating hole overlaps one of the heat-dissipating channels in the one direction and wherein the heat-dissipating hole is disposed in an inner area of the outer circumference of the impeller.
Lee or Wang do not disclose: a hair dryer comprising: a body part formed in a cylindrical shape extending in one direction, having inner and outer diameters reduced from one side to another side thereof, and having a hollow portion therein; a handle part formed in a cylindrical shape extending in another direction, disposed beneath the body part, and coupled to the body part; and the fan motor accommodated in one of the body part and the handle part; a controller configured to control an operating state of the fan motor; and a power supply unit electrically connected to the fan motor and the controller to supply electric energy to the fan motor and the controller.
The above undisclosed limitations amount to utilizing the fan motor in a hair dryer such as the one taught by Carlucci, see annotated fig. 3A, below.
Specifically, Carlucci teaches: a hair dryer (fig. 3A) comprising:
a body part (body, annotated fig. 3A) formed in a cylindrical shape extending in one direction, having inner and outer diameters reduced from one side to another side thereof, and having a hollow portion therein;
a handle part (handle, annotated fig. 3A) formed in a cylindrical shape extending in another direction, disposed beneath the body part, and coupled to the body part; and
the fan motor accommodated in one of the body part and the handle part (in body part);
a controller (controller, annotated fig. 3A) configured to control an operating state of the fan motor; and
a power supply unit (power supply cord, annotated fig. 3A) electrically connected to the fan motor and the controller to supply electric energy to the fan motor and the controller.
PNG
media_image6.png
664
513
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To utilize the fan motor in a hair dryer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s design in such a way that: the hair dryer comprising: a body part formed in a cylindrical shape extending in one direction, having inner and outer diameters reduced from one side to another side thereof, and having a hollow portion therein; a handle part formed in a cylindrical shape extending in another direction, disposed beneath the body part, and coupled to the body part; and the fan motor accommodated in one of the body part and the handle part; a controller configured to control an operating state of the fan motor; and a power supply unit electrically connected to the fan motor and the controller to supply electric energy to the fan motor and the controller.
Regarding claim 15, Lee as modified by Wang and Carlucci discloses the hair dryer of claim 14, wherein
the number of teeth provided in the single stator assembly is a multiple of three (discussed regarding claim 3), wherein
the heat-dissipating hole is provided in plurality in the single vane hub, and wherein the number of heat-dissipating holes provided in the single vane hub is equal to the number of teeth disposed in the single stator assembly (discussed regarding claim 2).
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified by Wang and Carlucci discloses the hair dryer of claim 14, wherein a cross-sectional area of the heat- dissipating hole is larger than or equal to a cross-sectional area of the heat- dissipating channel (discussed regarding claim 5).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified by Wang and Carlucci discloses the hair dryer of claim 14, wherein an area of an outer circumference of a space defined between the vane hub and the impeller is larger than or equal to a sum of cross-sectional areas of the plurality of heat-dissipating holes (discussed regarding claim 6).
Regarding claim 18, Lee as modified by Wang discloses the hair dryer of claim 14, wherein a cross-section of the heat- dissipating hole is rounded rather than angular (discussed regarding claim 11).
Regarding claim 19, Lee as modified by Wang discloses the hair dryer of claim 14, wherein a cross-section of the heat- dissipating hole has a shape corresponding to a cross-section of the heat- dissipating channel (discussed regarding claim 12).
Regarding claim 20, Lee as modified by Wang and Carlucci discloses the hair dryer of claim 14, wherein the vane hub is formed such that an outer edge of an upper end portion thereof is chamfered (discussed regarding claim 13).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights