DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed November 25, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 6 are pending in the application with claim 7 being cancelled.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, Yusuke (US 2007/0178720 – herein after Yoshida) in view of Hung et al. (US 2012/0139387 – herein after Hung) and evidenced by Burtch, Joseph (US 2018/0023578 – herein after Burtch) and Yeh et al. (US 2007/0128022 – herein after Yeh).
In reference to claim 1, Yoshida teaches a fan structure comprising:
a frame body (11) configured as a first individual component (as seen in fig. 5 or in view of disclosure in ¶34) having a base seat (15), a circumferential wall (inner circumferential wall; labelled in fig. A below as well), and multiple first support members (14) with a first end (see fig. A below) of each first support member connected to the base seat (15) and each first support member horizontally extending (“horizontally extending” implies radial direction; “14” radially extends in view of fig. A below) from the base seat with an opposite second end (see fig. A below) of each first support member connected to the circumferential wall;
a reserved assembling section (labelled “r.a.s.” in fig. A below) being an open space defined between (in radial direction) the base seat and the circumferential wall and between two adjacent first support members (see fig. A below); and
a stator assembly (31+21, in fig. 1) configured as a second individual component (in view of fig. 1 and disclosure in ¶32; furthermore, as seen in fig. 1 the stator is positioned on the plate-like portion 15, thus the stator being a second individual component), separate from the frame body (11), and having an electrical wire (22, in fig. 1), the stator assembly being disposed on the base seat (15) and combined with the frame body (in view of assembled state of the fan structure seen in fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 5 of Yoshida to show claim interpretation.
Yoshida does not teach the claimed waterproof plastic layer, i.e., “a waterproof plastic layer integrally formed on the stator assembly to enclose the stator assembly and the electrical wire; and a second support member horizontally extending from the base seat and formed with the waterproof plastic layer as a single structure so as to integrally encapsulate the electrical wire”:
However, Hung teaches a stator manufacturing method for a motor, comprising: a waterproof plastic layer [protective glue coating 13, in fig. 7 or see ¶48; furthermore ¶49 states “..the shaft tube seat 81 has to be coupled with the circuit board 82, magnetic pole pieces 83 and coil unit 84 before the waterproof glue is injected into the shaft tube seat 81”; thus this glue is waterproof glue and is further considered to be “waterproof plastic layer” since it forms a solid, non-permeable protective coating that acts like a plastic barrier over the stator components (in view of discussion in ¶2)] integrally formed on the stator assembly (1/3a, in fig. 7/9) to enclose the stator assembly and the electrical wire (electrical wire is not labelled but present as shown in fig. B below; this electrical wire is partially enclosed by the coating 13); and a second support member (see fig. B below: labelled “A”) horizontally extending from the base seat (“horizontally extending” implies radial direction; in view of fig. B below: “A” extends in ← direction) and formed with the waterproof plastic layer (13) as a single structure so as to integrally encapsulate the electrical wire and extending horizontally (extending in radial direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
770
2082
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited figs. 7 and 9 of Hung to show claim interpretation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the stator assembly of Yoshida with a protective coating that entirely covers stator components and partially covers the electrical wire for partly forming the second support member as a single structure using the teaching of Hung to have the stator assembly that is “humidity-proof, dustproof or oil-proof”, as recognized by Hung (see ¶2).
Yoshida, as modified by Hung, thus teaches the waterproof fan structure comprising:
a waterproof plastic layer integrally (of Hung) formed on the stator assembly (of Yoshida) to enclose the stator assembly and the electrical wire (the electrical wire 22 of Yoshida is partially enclosed); and
a second support member (this second support member in the modified fan structure being formed by component labelled “A” in fig. B above) horizontally extending from (horizontally extending = extension in radial direction in view of fig. A above) the base seat and formed with the waterproof plastic layer as a single structure so as to integrally encapsulate (in partial manner) the electrical wire and the second support member extending horizontally (radially) in the reserved assembling section (of Yoshida; labelled “r.a.s.” in fig. A above).
Yoshida, as modified by Hung, does not teach the fan waterproof structure, wherein the second support member is “connected with the circumferential wall such that the first support members and the second support member formed with the waterproof plastic layer as the single structure form a rib structure or static blade structure”.
The second support member (labelled “A” in fig. B above) is partially formed in the modified fan waterproof structure. This second support member is not connected to the circumferential wall (labelled in fig. A above).
However, the claimed feature of “second support member connected to the circumferential wall” in the modified waterproof fan depends on the amount of electrical wire encapsulated by Hung’s waterproof coating. Burtch evidences the fan structure with the first support members [60; these are the members in which wire(s) are not disposed] and the second support member [60 in which wires 42, 44 are disposed or 60 in which wire 46 is disposed], wherein the second support member [member 60 with wire(s) disposed therein] is formed with the waterproof plastic layer (resin) to integrally encapsulate the electrical wire (42+44 or 46) [see ¶16: elements 52,56,60,70 are integrally molded of resin and see ¶5, ¶20 and ¶23: wire(s) integrally molded with elements 56, 60, 52 such that the wire(s) are embedded with elements 56, 60, 52].
The wire holding portion (20, in fig. 1 of Yoshida) holding the electrical wire (22, in fig. 1 of Yoshida) is susceptible from being worn out or to become loose. A worn wire holding portion may no longer hold the electrical wire, allowing it to hang or experience additional mechanical stress. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the waterproof fan structure of Yoshida and Hung by encapsulating Yoshida’s electrical wire in Hung’s coating up to the Yoshida’s second end (shown in fig. A above) for the purpose of providing a secure, closed, protected place for the wire(s) in order to protect/insulate the wire(s) from surroundings, as recognized by Burtch (see ¶33 and ¶4).
Thus, Yoshida, as modified, teaches the waterproof fan structure, wherein the second support member [formed by Hung’s waterproof coating encapsulating Yoshida’s electrical wire 22 from the first end (labelled in fig. A above) to the second end (labelled in fig. A above)] is connected with the circumferential wall (labelled in fig. A above) such that the first support members (14, in Yoshida) and the second support member formed with the waterproof plastic layer as the single structure form a rib structure or static blade structure [element(s) that are stationary and inhibits the fluid flow flowing through the fan].
Yoshida, as modified, does not teach the fan waterproof structure, wherein the first support members and the second support member that extends horizontally (extension in radial direction such that they point to the center) from the base seat are also tangential (swept or skewed such that are offset from the center).
However, Yeh evidences a fan structure (see fig. 1), wherein a plurality of support members (123c, 126) horizontally extends tangentially (extends in radial direction as well as are skewed or arc shaped; see ¶20) from the base seat (122) to the circumferential wall (of frame 12).
Since applicant has not disclosed any criticality associated with claimed “tangential” extension of the first and second support members, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the horizontal extending first and second support members from the base seat to the circumferential wall in the modified fan structure of Yoshida “tangential” for the purpose of matching the curvature of the ribs to that of rotor/fan blades, as recognized by Yeh (see ¶20).
In reference to claim 2, Yoshida, as modified, teaches the fan waterproof structure, wherein a bearing cup (17, in fig. 1 of Yoshida) is vertically disposed at a center of the base seat (15, in fig. 1 of Yoshida), the stator assembly (modified stator assembly 31+21, in fig. 1 of Yoshida) being fitted around the bearing cup.
In reference to claim 3, Yoshida, as modified, teaches the fan waterproof structure, wherein the waterproof plastic layer is made by means of plastic potting or low-pressure insert integral injection (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “made by means of plastic potting or low-pressure insert integral injection” has not been given patentable weight).
In reference to claim 4, Yoshida, as modified, teaches the fan waterproof structure, wherein the multiple first support members and the second support member are made of a same material [in the modified fan waterproof structure: Yoshida’s first support members 14 are made of resin (see ¶32: support members 14 are part of housing 11 which is made of resin); the second support member {formed by Hung’s coating encapsulating Yoshida’s electrical wire 22 from the first end (labelled in fig. A above) to the second end (labelled in fig. A above)} is made of resin (see ¶46: coating is resin or silicon gel); thus, the second support member and the first support members are made of a same material (resin)].
In reference to claim 5, Yoshida, as modified, teaches the fan waterproof structure, wherein the second support member and the waterproof plastic layer are made of a same material [in the modified fan waterproof structure: the second support member {formed by Hung’s waterproof coating encapsulating Yoshida’s electrical wire 22 from the first end (labelled in fig. A above) to the second end (labelled in fig. A above)} is formed with the waterproof layer as a single structure {as discussed above in claim 1}; thus, the second support member and the waterproof plastic layer are made of same material].
In reference to claim 6, Yoshida, as modified, teaches the fan waterproof structure, wherein the multiple first support members and the second support member are made of different materials [in the modified fan waterproof structure: Yoshida’s first support members 14 are made of resin (see ¶32: support members 14 are part of housing 11 which is made of resin); the second support member {formed by Hung’s coating encapsulating Yoshida’s electrical wire 22 from the first end (labelled in fig. A above) to the second end (labelled in fig. A above)} is considered to be made of silicon gel (see ¶46: coating is resin or silicon gel); thus, the second support member and the first support members are made of different materials].
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive.
The “Tangential” Argument (new claim limitation): The applicant argues that none of the references (Yoshida, Hung or Burtch) teach support members that extend “horizontally tangentially”.
The amendment to independent claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied to claim 1, in a view of newly relied upon reference of Yeh. However, this newly added limitation represents an obvious design choice (as discussed above). Such claimed geometric configuration for the blades are widely use and thus known in the art (as evidenced by Yeh).
Arguments with respect to combination with Burtch: The Applicant repeats their core attack on the Burtch reference (though rephrased slightly). These arguments are not found to be persuasive for same reasons as discussed previously. As mentioned previously, applicant is attacking the Burtch reference individually regarding the frame structure. Burtch is relied upon to show that the extension of the second support member in claimed manner depends on the amount of electrical wire encapsulated by waterproof coating. Simply stated, Burtch is used to show that it is known to provide such electrical wire with a coating/covering that extends from where the electrical wire protrudes from the stator base to a peripheral wall around the fan base. Hung teaches “a second support member” as partially formed with the waterproof plastic layer (as seen in fig. B above: second support member is labeled “A”). Hung remains silent on claimed extension of the second support member and its connection to the circumferential wall of the frame body. Burtch shows the amount of encapsulation of stator’s electrical wire by waterproof coating (waterproof coating surrounding the electrical wire forming the claimed “second support member”). Combining these teachings is predictable. A skilled artisan would recognize that the exposed wires are vulnerable (as noted in the rejection) and would look to Burtch’s solution to solve this problem. Applicant ignores the combined teachings. In the proposed combination, the “first support members” are of Yoshida, and the “second support member” (the wire-encapsulating strut) is formed by the coating/encapsulation taught by Hung and Burtch. When the stator (with its encapsulated wire strut) is assembled into the frame (with its existing struts), the aggregate result is a plurality of struts that collectively form the “rib structure or static blade structure” claimed.
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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 at 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 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746