DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (claims 1-3 and 5-14) in the reply filed on 09/25/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The application includes a single independent claim and there is nothing to divide. In the restriction, the Examiner cites to 5 categories of claims directed to different categories of invention. There is only one independent claim in the pending application and therefore only one category of claim.” (see Applicant’s Response at page 2). More specifically, Applicant states that ‘neither claim 1 nor claim 4 recite limitations related to the description of paragraphs [0051]. There is no connection between claims 1 and 4 and the description of paragraph 0051. 3. Claim 4 recites a relationship between a height (38) of the cooling ribs and a radial extent of the annular space (31) between an inner side of the impeller housing (15) and an outer side of the motor housing (19)”. Applicant arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Requirement for Election/Restriction of 07/28/2025 has been withdrawn upon further consideration.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1: “An impeller machine comprising an impeller housing” should be changed to -- An impeller machine comprising: an impeller housing--. (for clarity)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite because it sets forth that “a height of the cooling rib between an outer side of the motor housing”. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is attempting to require a different, separate “outer side” or further defines the outer side of the motor, as recited in line 1, lines 7-8, or something else. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that “an outer side” recited in line 3 should read as – the outer side of the motor housing --.
Claim 4 is vague and indefinite because it sets forth that “a height of the cooling rib between an outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end is between 2% and 20% of a radial extent of the annular space between an inner side of the impeller housing and an outer side of the motor housing.” Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is attempting to require a different, separate “outer side” or further defines the outer side of the motor, as recited in line 1, lines 7-8, or something else. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that “an outer side” recited in line 6 should read as – the outer side of the motor housing --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) (Patent No.: US 11,725,671 B2) in view of Schübeler (Pub. No.: DE102014209410A1, English translation appended).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an impeller machine (fan motor 100, as stated in Abstract) comprising an impeller housing (housing 110 that defines an outer appearance of the fan motor 100, as discussed in column 4 lines 7-18), a motor housing (inner housing IH that is defined by a combination of a first vane hub 151 having a cylindrical shape and second vane hub 161 that has a cylindrical shape and being installed to support the stator 140, as presented in column 9 lines 10-21 and annotated Figure 2) and a stator (stator 140 disposed to surround the rotor in the inner housing, as stated in Abstract and/or vane blades 152 formed along an outer surface of the first hub 151, as detailed in column 8 lines 25-35) which extends between the impeller housing (housing 110) and the motor housing (the vane blades 152, which are designated as the stator, are undoubtedly extending between the impeller housing 110 and the inner housing IH, as best seen in annotated Figure 2), wherein the motor housing (inner housing IH) is arranged in an interior of the impeller housing (the inner housing IH is clearly arranged in an interior of the impeller housing 110, as depicted in annotated Figure 2), said impeller machine comprising a rotor (impeller 130, as stated in column 4 lines 33-40) for generating an airflow (for generating a flow of air along a longitudinal direction or axial direction, as indicated by arrows FF, as stated in column 4 lines 19-29) along an annular space (along an accommodation space defined by the upper housing 110a and the lower housing 110b, as expressly stated in column 4 lines 19-25& 50-56) enclosed between the impeller housing (impeller housing 110) and the motor housing (inner housing IH).
Particularly, Kim demonstrates as how: a fan motor 100 includes housing 110, a rotating (or rotational) shaft 120, an impeller 130, a rotor 144, a stator 140, a first vane 150, and a second vane 160. As described later, the fan motor 100 can further include a first bearing 181, a second bearing 182, a bearing housing 171 (a first bearing housing), and a sub bearing housing 172 (a second bearing housing).
The housing 110 defines an outer appearance of the fan motor 100. In some examples, the housing 110 can be also referred to as a shroud, but the term “housing” will be used herein (see column 4 lines 7-18).
Notably, in column 5 lines 1-16, Kim states that: The rotating shaft 120 can be rotatably inserted through a center of the housing 110 in the axial direction. Since the impeller 130 is configured to suction air from outside (or external air), it has a structure in which a plurality of blades 132 protrudes from a hub 131 that is located at a central portion thereof. The hub 131 of the impeller 130 can have a conical shape that gradually increases in diameter from the top to the bottom, and the plurality of blades 132 can protrude in a helical manner from an outer circumferential surface of the hub 131. The plurality of blades 132 can be disposed to be spaced apart from one another in a circumferential direction of the hub 131. The plurality of blades 132 can be formed such that a gap between each blade increases from an upper end to a lower end of the hub 131.
As illustrated in annotated Figure 4A, Kim especially notes that: the bearing housing 171 and the second vane 160 can be coupled to each other by a screw, and the stator 140 can be disposed in an accommodation space defined by the bearing housing 171 and the second vane 160 (see column 6 lines 25-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
790
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Essentially, Kim’s impeller machine is certainly designed such that the motor housing or inner housing IH is being arranged in an interior of the impeller housing 110 and/or said impeller machine comprising a rotor or impeller 130 generating an airflow along an annular space or accommodation space, as indicated by arrows F, enclosed between the impeller housing 110 and the motor housing or inner housing IH, as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
435
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim, in column 9 lines 10-34, then goes on to describe how: The second vane 160, which is located at the downstream side of the first vane 150, can be disposed to be axially spaced apart from the first vane 150 on a straight line. The second vane 160 can include a second vane hub 161 and a heat dissipation fin (or cooling fin) 162. The second vane hub 161 and the heat dissipation fin 162 can be integrally formed, and be made of the same metal material. For example, the second vane hub 161 and the heat dissipation fin 162 can be made of an aluminum material and an aluminum alloy having excellent thermal conductivity. The second vane hub 161 can have a cylindrical shape and be installed to surround and support the stator 140. A cooling flow path can be formed between the second vane hub 161 and the inner surface of the housing 110, so as to allow air to flow therethrough. The cooling flow path can be formed in a straight line along the axial direction to minimize flow resistance. The second vane 160 can include a plurality of heat dissipation fins 162 protruding outward from an outer surface of the second vane hub 161. Here, each of the heat dissipation fins 162 can protrude from the outer surface of the second vane hub 161, so as to be accommodated in the cooling flow path. Each of the heat dissipation fins 162 can protrude from an outer circumferential surface of the second vane hub 161 along a helical direction, and at least a part (or some) of the heat dissipation fins 162 can be in contact with the inner surface of the housing 110, allowing heat to be transferred to the housing 110.
Clearly, with reference to annotated Figure 4a, Kim explicitly exhibits as how the motor housing or inner housing IH being provided on its outer side with a cooling ribs or dissipation fins 162 and/or how the cooling rib or dissipation fins 162 rising from the motor housing IH to a peripheral end PE160 while an upstream portion of the cooling rib dissipation fin 162 being arranged in a different peripheral position than a downstream portion of the cooling rib or dissipation fin 162, as instantly claimed.
Although Kim discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, he is silent as to the fact that the stator is being an aero stator and/or rotor is being an aero rotor.
Nevertheless, Schübeler in the same field of endeavor teaches another cooling system for an electric motor, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 2, and performs how the motor, as stated in Abstract, is being equipped with a rotatable impeller assembly (2) for generating a primary cooling airflow (P) and a plurality of stator blades (4) arranged in the primary cooling airflow (P), which are arranged radially outwards projecting on the outside of a housing (1) enclosing the electrical components of the electric motor, wherein the stator blades (4) have an airfoil shape with a high-pressure side (5) and a low-pressure side (6) in the forward direction of the primary cooling airflow (P), wherein, according to the invention, at least one outlet opening (7) of a flow channel (8) is arranged in the region of the low-pressure side (6) of at least one stator blade (4), wherein the flow channel (8) carries a secondary cooling airflow (S) from an inlet opening (9) located in the front region of the housing (1) facing away from the impeller assembly (2), through the housing of the motor between the movable rotor (11) and the housing (1) of the electric motor to the low-pressure side (6) of the stator blades (4) leads.
PNG
media_image3.png
560
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Schübeler, in Paragraph [0008], successfully teaches that: A crucial aid in generating this secondary airflow is the fact that the special aerodynamic design of the stator blades on the electric motor utilizes the negative pressure already present on the suction side of the stator blade, due to the design, to generate the secondary airflow.
Especially, Schübeler, in Paragraphs [0019]-[0020], notes: On the outside of the housing 1, radially projecting are a plurality of stator blades 4, which are designed to have a wing-like cross-section. Due to the airfoil shape, a positive pressure side 5 is created on the underside of the airfoil shape of a stator blade 4 and a negative pressure side 6 on the upper side of the airfoil shape in the primary cooling airflow P at the stator blades 4. Negative pressure and positive pressure are generated by the primary cooling airflow P, which passes over the profile shape of the stator blades 4.
Further, it’s a well-established fact that an aero rotor having advanced aerodynamic blade shapes with optimized camber, thickness distribution and stacking.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using special aerodynamic design, as taught by Schübeler, in the impeller machine of Kim, in order to further increase the cooling of conventional electric motors and thereby significantly improve their energy efficiency, as motivated by Schübeler in Paragraph [0025].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that an impeller machine would be further comprising an aero stator which would be further extending between the impeller housing and the motor housing and/or further comprising an aero rotor for generating an airflow along an annular space, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 10., Kim and Schübeler substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above.
PNG
media_image4.png
435
698
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, as best seen in annotated Figure 4A, Kim evidently illustrates as how a plurality of cooling ribs 162 distributed over a periphery of the motor housing or inner housing IH.
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Schübeler substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in column 9 lines 17-22, Kim especially teaches as how: A cooling flow path can be formed between the second vane hub 161 and the inner surface of the housing 110, so as to allow air to flow therethrough. The cooling flow path can be formed in a straight line along the axial direction to minimize flow resistance.
Further, in column 9 lines 45-57, Kim discloses: As the second vane hub 161 of the second vane 160 is installed to be in contact with the stator 140, heat generated during the operation of the fan motor can be transferred thereto. Since the plurality of heat dissipation fins 162 formed along the outer surface of the second vane hub 161 is disposed in the cooling flow path, heat can be released into the cooling flow path through which air flows. In addition, as the plurality of heat dissipation fins 162 protrudes from the outer circumferential surface of the second vane hub 161 in the helical direction, and at least a part of the heat dissipation fins 162 is in contact with the inner surface of the housing 110, heat can be transferred to the housing 110 by conduction.
In other words, according to the combination, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that the impeller machine comprising a cooling air channel which extends through an interior of the motor housing, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Regarding claim 12, Kim and Schübeler substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in column 3 lines 28-33, Kim specifically teaches that: the sub bearing housing can define a plurality of air outlets disposed adjacent to the sub bearing support portion and configured to discharge air an outside of the fan motor. In some examples, the stator can be disposed at an upper portion of the sub bearing housing.
More specifically, in column 4 lines 33-40, Kim further details: The open upper end of the housing 110 can be provided with an air inlet 111 through which air is suctioned when the impeller 130 is driven, and the sub bearing housing 172 to be described hereinafter can be coupled to the open lower end of the housing 110 so that the introduced air is discharged through an air outlet 172e formed at the sub bearing housing 172.
PNG
media_image5.png
410
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Also, in Paragraph [0013], Schübeler especially notes: In order to optimize the volume of the secondary airflow, it has also proven useful to arrange an outlet opening on the negative pressure side of each stator blade.
Further, in Paragraphs [0019]-[0020], Schübeler discloses that: On the outside of the housing 1, radially projecting are a plurality of stator blades 4, which are designed to have a wing-like cross-section. Due to the airfoil shape, a positive pressure side 5 is created on the underside of the airfoil shape of a stator blade 4 and a negative pressure side 6 on the upper side of the airfoil shape in the primary cooling airflow P at the stator blades 4. Negative pressure and positive pressure are generated by the primary cooling airflow P, which passes over the profile shape of the stator blades 4.
Still further, in Paragraph [0022], Schübeler specifies: The aforementioned secondary cooling airflow S is generated if a sufficient negative pressure is created on the negative pressure side 6 of the stator blades 4 by the primary cooling airflow P.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a negative pressure at the outlet opening of Kim/ Schübeler, in order to further increase the cooling of conventional electric motors and thereby significantly improve their energy efficiency, as motivated by Schübeler in Paragraph [0025].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably apprised that an outlet opening of the cooling air channel would be further being opened out in a region of the annular space in which a negative pressure would present during operation of the impeller machine, as instantly claimed.
10. Claims 2-4 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schübeler, and further in view of Epple et al. (hereinafter “Epple”) (“Theoretical derivation of the Cordier diagram for turbomachines”, cited in IDS filed 06/15/2023).
Regarding claims 2-4, Kim and Schübeler substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in column 9 lines 23-40, Kim especially teaches that: Each of the heat dissipation fins 162 can be radially disposed at predetermined intervals along the outer surface of the second vane hub 161. Here, each of the heat dissipation fins 162 can be inclined at a predetermined angle along the outer surface of the second vane hub 161.
Clearly, the cooling ribs extending in axial direction while being arranged between an outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end PE160.
However, although the combination of Kim/Schübeler discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it is still silent as to the particular dimensions and/or positioning of the cooling ribs.
Nonetheless, Epple explicitly teaches that: The design of high-efficiency fans is often based on the experience of the designer (see Abstract). Epple provides evidence of analysis of the relationships between the physical dimensions (like diameters) of the motor housing and it’s cooling ribs or optimizing heat transfer.
PNG
media_image6.png
96
416
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Epple more clearly describes the analysis of existing turbomachine designs and/or relationships between main dimensioning and/or geometrical considerations later in the disclosure, and even specifically discloses calculations being made to determine the relative and/or main dimensions of the turbomachine.
Epple explicitly teaches as how: The ratio b2 I D2 in equation (84) is the ratio of the height to the diameter of a radial fan. Usually, for a radial impeller, this ratio does not exceed 0.1 (i.e. b2 does not usually exceed 10% of the outer diameter D2). Furthermore, in the case of axial fans, the ratio of the hub-to-tip radii m does not usually exceed 0.5. Hence, from Fig. 14, it is clear that axial fans, in general, have a higher flow coefficient as radial fans (see page 366).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the invention of Kim/Schübeler and apply the teachings of Epple to optimize the main dimensions through routine experimentation in order to determine optimum operating conditions with the optimum diameter, as motivated by Epple at page 354.
As such, in view of prior art teachings, the variations of heights and/or diameters, as taught by Kim/Schübeler/Epple, is found to be a result-effective variables which effects the operating condition of the cooling fins. It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably apprised that the cooling rib would be further extending in an axial direction over at least 60% of a length of the motor housing or inner housing IH and/or a height of the cooling rib between an outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end of Kim would be further being between 2% and 20% of a diameter of the motor housing or inner housing IH and/or a height of the cooling rib between an outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end would be further being between 2% and 20% of a radial extent of the annular space between an inner side of the impeller housing 110, as detailed by Kim, and an outer side of the motor housing, as instantly claimed.
11. Claims 5-8 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schübeler, and further in view of DOSHI et al. (hereinafter “DOSHI”) (Pub. No.: WO 2020/160602 A1 cited in IDS filed 06/15/2023).
Regarding claims 5-8, Kim and Schübeler substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in column 9 lines 35-45, Kim expressly states that: Each of the heat dissipation fins 162 can be radially disposed at predetermined intervals along the outer surface of the second vane hub 161. Here, each of the heat dissipation fins 162 can be inclined at a predetermined angle along the outer surface of the second vane hub 161.
Although the combination of Kim and Schübeler discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it is still silent as to the specifics regarding angles of the upstream and downstream portions.
Nonetheless, Doshi in the same field of endeavor teaches another fan unit, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 2 of Kim, and performs as how each guide vane comprises a first portion extending longitudinally through a first section and wherein the first portion of each guide vane is at a longitudinal vane angle Q with respect to the longitudinal airflow straightener axis (see Paragraph [0011]).
Specifically, in Paragraphs [0013]-[0019], Doshi discloses as how: the longitudinal vane angle Q of each vane at the respective leading edge is an entrance angle 0e and wherein the longitudinal vane angle Q decreases with increased displacement downstream the respective leading edge. Preferably, the longitudinal vane angle Q of each vane decreases longitudinally to zero. Preferably, the first portion of vanes are curved in the longitudinal direction by constant radius of curvature. Preferably, the entrance angle 0e of each vane varies from the vane base to the vane tip. Preferably, the entrance angle 0e is selected to be substantially aligned with the angle of the airstream entering the airflow straightener at the airflow straightener inlet. Preferably, an incidence angle i measured between the entrance angle 0e and the angle of the airstream entering the airflow straightener is selected to be less than 15°, more preferably less than 10° across at least 60 % of the cross-sectional area of the airflow straightener inlet, more preferably across at least 75 % of the cross-sectional area of the airflow straightener inlet, most preferably across at least 90 % of the cross-sectional area of the airflow straightener inlet. Preferably, the entrance angle 0e is between 10° and 50°, preferably between 25° and 40°, most preferably around 35°.
Further, in Paragraph [0034], Doshi more specifically states: Avoiding the divergence of the flow field by generating airflow with a reduced swirl component and more focused, “straight” flow would have numerous benefits. It would increase the airflow velocity within the flow region, resulting in greater cooling, and accordingly increase trajectory length, allowing objects further away to receive the same effective cooling. Focused flow may therefore achieve an equivalent cooling effect at a greater distance from the fan using the similar power as a divergent fan, or, achieve increased cooling at the same distance for the similar power as compared to a divergent fan, or, achieve the same cooling at the same distance using less power when compared to a divergent fan.
Furthermore, in Paragraph [0083], Doshi notes that: at the airflow straightener inlet, the leading part of each straightener vane is angled with respect to the fan axis so that the airstream exiting the fan meets each vane at an optimum angle in order to minimize turbulence and disruption of the airstream. From the leading edge, a first portion of each airflow straightener vane is curved to smoothly alter the airstream’ s trajectory in the longitudinal direction, in particular reducing tangential vector components, and guide the airstream into a longer second section of the straightener where the straightening vanes and conduits are straight so as to confine the airstream to a linear path and encourage laminar flow.
As such, in view of prior art teachings, the variations of angles of cooling fins or vanes, as taught by Doshi, is found to be a result-effective variables which enhancing the effective airflow trajectory length. It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the invention of Kim/ Schübeler and apply the teachings of Doshi to optimize the angle of the cooling fins or vanes or cooling ribs through routine experimentation in order to increase the airflow velocity within the flow region, resulting in greater cooling, and accordingly increase trajectory length, allowing objects further away to receive the same effective cooling, as motivated by Doshi in Paragraph [0034].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably apprised that an angle that the upstream portion of the cooling rib of Kim would further forms with a longitudinal line would be further being greater than an angle that the downstream portion of the cooling rib would further forms with a longitudinal line and/or an upstream end of the cooling rib would be further forming an angle between 10° and 50° with a longitudinal line and/or a downstream end of the cooling rib of Kim would be further forming an angle of less than 80 with a longitudinal line and/or an angle between the cooling rib of Kim and a longitudinal line would be necessarily continuously decreasing from an upstream end to a downstream end of the cooling rib, as instantly claimed.
12. Claim 9 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schübeler, and further in view of LAWRENCE (Patent No.: GB 2449688 A, English translation is appended).
Regarding claim 9, Kim and Schübeler substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above.
However, although the combination of Kim and Schübeler discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it does not explicitly disclose that the downstream portion of the cooling rib extends rearwardly beyond a downstream end of the impeller housing and/or being located outside the annular space surrounded by the impeller housing.
Nevertheless, LAWRENCE in the same field of endeavor teaches another impeller machine, wherein, as stated in Abstract, a plurality of blades 3 extending radially outwardly from the hub, and a plurality of blades 4 extending axially rearwardly from the hub. The rearwardly extending blades 4 preferably extend backwards from the radially outer portion of the hub, and also extend partially into the hub. The axially extending fins 4 ideally protrude 5mm rearwardly of the hub. A lip 5 may be provided outside the hub at the rear so as to redirect axially flowing air radially outwards. Preferably the impeller belongs to an axial extractor fan assembly comprising a motor to drive the impeller. The arrangement expels air from behind the hub, thereby creating a circulation which cools down the fan motor. An independent claim relates to an impeller having a lip formed on the outside of the hub at the rear, and a plurality of blades located radially inwardly of the lip.
PNG
media_image7.png
430
294
media_image7.png
Greyscale
According to the invention, LAWRENCE performs as how: an impeller for an axial fan comprising: a hub; a plurality of fins extending radially outwardly from the hub; and a plurality of fins extending axially rearwardly from the hub (see page 3).
Clearly, as best seen in annotated Figure 2, LAWRENCE evidently illustrates as how the downstream portion of the fins or blades 4 extending rearwardly beyond a downstream end of the impeller housing while being located outside the annular space surrounded by the impeller housing.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a fins or blades, as taught by LAWRENCE, to the impeller machine of Kim/ Schübeler, in order to create a stronger cooling airflow, as motivated by LAWRENCE at page 3.
Thus modified, one of ordinary skill would have been reasonably appraised that the downstream portion of the cooling rib would be further extending rearwardly beyond a downstream end of the impeller housing and/or would be further located outside the annular space surrounded by the impeller housing, as instantly claimed.
13. Claim 13 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schübeler, and further in view of Donelian (Patent No.: US 3,933,416 A).
Regarding claim 13, Kim and Schübeler substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above.
However, although the combination of Kim and Schübeler discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it is still silent as to the fact an interior of the motor housing being sealed dust-tightly and/or or water-tightly.
Nonetheless, Donelian successfully teaches a hermetically sealed motor blower unit comprising, in combination, as stated in Abstract, a sealed housing having a thrust plate mounted therein and having a re-entrant wall forming a central cavity in said housing, a rotor within said housing, said rotor comprising an impeller.
Notably, as best seen in annotated Figure 1, Donelian explicitly teaches as how a motor blower unit comprising generally a sealed gas-tight casing 10 and a rotor 12 adapted to rotate about a vertical axis (see column 2 lines 65-68).
PNG
media_image8.png
664
554
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a sealed gas-tight casing, as taught by Donelian, to the impeller machine of Kim and Schübeler, in order to provide an electric motor adapted to be more effectively incorporated in a motor blower unit for handling gases at relatively low absolute pressures, as motivated by Donelian in column 2 lines 31-35.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that an interior of the motor housing would be further being sealed dust-tightly or water-tightly, as instantly claimed.
14. Claim 14 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schübeler, and further in view of Meier et al. (hereinafter “Meier”) (Pub. No.: US 2018/0245598 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kim and Schübeler substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in column 7 lines 15-20, Kim expressly states that: The stator 140 can be surrounded and supported by the second vane 160 and be located in the lower housing 110b.
Clearly, according to the combination, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that the aero stator is holding the motor housing or inner housing relative to the impeller housing 110, as instantly claim.
The combination of Kim and Schübeler does not explicitly disclose a cable that is routed inside the aero stator.
Nonetheless, the use of cables in an impeller machine is well known in the art, as taught by Meier.
Meier in the same field of endeavor teaches another impeller machine, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 2 of Kim, and performs as how “The fan impeller is fastened rotationally conjointly to the rotor and serves for drawing in and conveying a gaseous medium. The cooling body has an inner wall which delimits an interior space for accommodating the motor, and has air-guiding elements which extend in each case in an axial direction over a major part of the longitudinal extent of the winding, through which electrical current flows, in order to conduct the gaseous medium, which is conveyed by the fan impeller, along the cooling body for motor cooling purposes. The housing has an outer wall which delimits a cavity for accommodating the cooling body and the motor.” (see Abstract).
Meier, in Paragraph [0082], explicitly teaches as how: The second bearing shield 18 has a kidney-shaped leadthrough opening 181 through which connection cables 123 of the motor 12 can be led.
PNG
media_image9.png
422
668
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Notably, in Paragraph [0083], Meier teaches that: The motor 12 and in particular the stator 122 bear by way of their outer surfaces against the inner surface of the inner wall 111 of the cooling body. An optimum transfer of heat from the motor 12 to the cooling body 11 is realized in this way. Since the air-guiding elements 113 of the cooling body 11 extend in the axial direction AR over the entire longitudinal extent of the motor 12 and in particular of the stator 122 and even beyond, the thermal energy produced in the motor 12 can be dissipated in optimum fashion.
PNG
media_image10.png
344
572
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
302
516
media_image11.png
Greyscale
As best seen immediately above, Meier evidently demonstrates as how the connection cable 123 being arranged inside the motor housing or cooling body 11.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using the
cable inside the cooling body, as taught by Meier, with the impeller machine of Kim/ Schübeler, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of a connection cable in an impeller machine to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the air flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that a cable would be further routed inside the aero stator, as instantly claimed.
Prior Art
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and consists of three patents.
US 11,002,242 B2, US 2008/0219844 A1 and US 20170328269 A1 are cited to show different impeller machines having a plurality of radiating fins provided between the main housing and the motor housing inside of the main housing.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights