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 .
Response to Amendment
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/18/2026. As
directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 3-4 have been amended, no claims have
been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-14 are currently
pending in this application.
Claim Objections
3. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 03/18/2026, the objection to claims 1-14 set
forth in the Office Action of 01/07/2026, is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 03/18/2026, the rejection of claims 3-4 under 35 USC § 112, second and first paragraphs, set forth in the Office Action of 01/07/2026, is moot.
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. Claim 4 is 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 4 is vague and indefinite because it sets forth that “a height of the cooling rib between the outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end is between 5% and 15% of a radial extent of the annular space between an inner side of the impeller housing and the outer side of the motor housing.” Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is attempting to require a different, separate “height” and/or “radial extend” and/or inner side of the impeller housing or further defines the “height” and/or “radial extend” and/or inner side, as now recited in claim 1, lines 12-13, or something else. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that “a height of the cooling rib between the outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end is between 5% and 15% of a radial extent of the annular space between an inner side of the impeller housing and the outer side of the motor housing” recited in lines 1-5 should read as – “the height of the cooling rib between the outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end is between 5% and 15% of the radial extent of the annular space between the inner side of the impeller housing and 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 1-4 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), and further in view Decker et al. (hereinafter “Decker”) (Pub. No.: US 2008/0219836 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
790
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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).
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 includes an outer side facing the impeller housing 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.
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
435
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Likewise, in column 9 lines 23-40, 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.
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.
In fact, with reference to annotated Figure 4a again, Kim evidently illustrates as how the cooling ribs or heat dissipation fins extending in axial direction while being arranged between an outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end PE160.
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.
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
560
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
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 of the cooling ribs.
Nonetheless, it’s well known in the art that optimizing cooling fins or ribs for cylindrical structures like electrical motor housings relies on the mathematical relationship between the physical dimensions or diameter (D) of the motor housing and height of the cooling ribs (H). The ratio of the height of the cooling rib or fin to the cylindrical diameter (H/D) is being defined as a “result -effective variable” in engineering design.
Certainly, the cooling ribs vary in height with respect to the diameter of the motor housing or with respect to the motor housing surface.
Decker in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for designing a fan having a plurality of guide vanes that, as stated in Abstract, extend radially outwardly from the hub, attaching the hub to the motor, determining an approximate amount of heat which is generated by the motor during operation of the fan, determining an approximate surface area which is required to dissipate the heat into a surrounding air stream, and configuring the guide vanes to comprise a total surface area which is approximately equal to the required surface area. In this manner, the heat generated by the motor during operation of the fan can be dissipated by the guide vanes.
Decker, in Paragraph [0031], successfully teaches that: The length and total surface area of the guide vanes 68 will provide a basis for an initial determination of the number of guide vanes and the chord C. area A and perimeter length L of each of a pre-selected number of airfoil segments 70 for each guide vane. Other factors which may be considered in determining these values may include the desired or required vane-blade ratio for the cooling fan 10 (i.e., the ratio of the number of guide vanes to the number of impeller blades, which has important acoustic implications), the desired or required chord solidity for the outlet guide vane assembly (i.e., the chord of the guide vanes multiplied by the number of guide vanes divided by the outer circumference of the circle joining the tips of the guide Vanes), the desired or required aspect ratio for the outlet guide vane assembly (i.e., the ratio of the height of the guide vanes to the chord of the guide vanes), the desired or required static pressure rise of the air flowing through the outlet guide vane assembly, the desired or required Reynolds number of the air flowing over the guide vanes, and the ability of the guide vanes to Support the motor 16.
Specifically, in Paragraph [0036], Decker notes: In determining the optimum configuration of the guide vanes 68 for dissipating the maximum amount of heat from the motor 16, each guide vane was selected to comprise eight airfoil segments 70.
PNG
media_image4.png
264
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
More specifically, in Paragraphs [0037]-[0038], Decker further details: From Table 1 we can see that the optimum configuration for the guide vanes 68 exists when the perimeter length L. area A and chord C of the first airfoil 70 are each greater than the values for any other airfoil, and when the perimeter length L. area A and chord C for the eighth airfoil are each smaller than the values for any other airfoil. More specifically, as the height of each airfoil 70 from the root of the guide Vane 68 increases, the perimeter length L. area A and chord C all decrease. Moreover, although the increase in height from the first airfoil to the eighth airfoil is generally linear, the decrease in the perimeter length L. area A and chord C from the first airfoil to the eighth airfoil are all non-linear. However, the amounts by which the perimeter length L. area A and chord C increase from the first airfoil to the eighth airfoil are not necessarily equal. It should be noted, however, that while the configuration represented by Table 1 optimizes the amount of heat which the guide vanes 68 are able to dissipate in this particular cooling fan 10, other fan designs comprising different parameters may require that the guide vanes be configured differently. Therefore, the above example and the conclusions drawn therefrom should not be considered as limiting the Scope of the present invention.
As such, in view of prior art teachings, the variations of heights and/or diameters, as taught by Kim/Schübeler/Decker, is found to be a result-effective variables which effects the operating condition of the cooling fins and/or the thermal resistance of the heat transfer path through the guide vanes. 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 Decker to optimize the main dimensions through routine experimentation in order to determine the optimum configuration of guide vanes which will achieve these functions without interfering with the ability of the guide vanes and/or for dissipating the maximum amount of heat from the motor 16, as motivated by Decker in Paragraphs [0027] &[0036].
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 and/or a height of the cooling rib between the outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end would be further being between 2% and 20% of a diameter of the motor housing and/or a height of the cooling rib between the outer side of the motor housing and the peripheral end would be further being between 5% and 15% of a radial extent of the annular space between an inner side of the impeller housing and the outer side of the motor housing, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Kim, Schübeler and Decker 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.
Thus, according to the combination, 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, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Kim, Schübeler and Decker substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above.
Further, according to the combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the motor housing or inner housing IH, as taught by Kim, extends beyond the impeller housing 110 of Kim, then the ribs or cooling ribs or dissipation fins 162 will also naturally extend beyond the impeller housing 110 because the whole length of the motor housing or inner housing IH would need to be cooled by the ribs cooling ribs or dissipation fins 16 or 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.
Regarding claim 10, Kim, Schübeler and Decker substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above.
PNG
media_image5.png
435
698
media_image5.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, Schübeler and Decker 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, Schübeler and Decker 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.
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.
PNG
media_image6.png
410
430
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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/ Decker, 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 5-8 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schübeler, and further in view of Decker, 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, Schübeler and Decker 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, Schübeler and Decker 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/ Decker 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.
11. Claim 13 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schübeler, and further in view of Decker, and further in view of Donelian (Patent No.: US 3,933,416 A).
Regarding claim 13, Kim, Schübeler and Decker substantially disclose the impeller machine, as claimed and detailed above.
However, although the combination of Kim, Schübeler and Decker 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_image7.png
664
554
media_image7.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/ Schübeler/ Decker, 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.
12. Claim 14 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schübeler, and further in view of Decker, and further in view of Meier et al. (hereinafter “Meier”) (Pub. No.: US 2018/0245598 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kim, Schübeler and Decker 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.
Moreover, as best seen immediately below, Schübeler explicitly exhibits as how each stator blade 4 or stator blade having an aerodynamic profile individually or collectively provides structural support. In other words, a plurality of aero stator blades 4 being arranged such that each stator blade having an aerodynamic profile, individually or in combination, directly or indirectly supports the motor housing and the impeller housing.
Certainly, according to the combination of Kim and Schübeler, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that the set of aero stator blades 4 is holding the motor housing or inner housing relative to the impeller housing 110, as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image8.png
544
646
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The combination of Kim, Schübeler and Decker 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 lead through opening 181 through which connection cables 123 of the motor 12 can be led.
PNG
media_image9.png
422
668
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
344
572
media_image10.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_image11.png
302
516
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In this arrangement, the connection cable 123 passes through the axial opening to further traverse the space between the motor housing and impeller housing. Clearly, this connecting cable 123 is being routed through the axial opening while being positioned within the cooling rib structure 11 or inside the motor housing.
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/Decker, 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.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Further, the Examiner notes that the newly applied reference addresses the applicant's arguments against the Kim and Schübeler references as set forth in the above rejections.
Furthermore, with respect to claims 5-8, the crux of Applicant’s arguments is that, because “Doshi teaches a configuration for vanes that straighten flow of air as it passes through a cowling. The vanes in Doshi are structured for a different purpose and are not disclosed in the context of a "cooling rib" as required by claims 1 and 5-8, or as discussed in Kim”, and because “This application of the teaching of Doshi to the cooling ribs of Kim ignores the fact that the vanes of Doshi are configured for the purpose of straightening the flow of air to enhance cooling of a person downstream of the personal cooling fan and have no relation to the structure of ribs arranged to cool a motor in an axial turbomachine such as that of claims 1 and 5-8” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 7, last paragraph), the Applicant disagrees with the combination of the references in arriving at the claimed invention.
In particular, Applicant argues that since “The rejection argues that the angles of "cooling fins or vanes, as taught by Doshi is found to be a result effective variables [sic.] which enhancing [sic.] the effective airflow trajectory length” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 7, last paragraph), and thus, “The proposed combination of Kim, Schübeler, and Doshi is not supported and does not disclose or suggest the limitations of claims 5-8” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 8, first paragraph).
Nonetheless, although the purpose of Doshi to have the vanes shaped that way is to enhance cooling of a person downstream of the fan, those vanes also provide cooling to the motor inside cowl 15 because air traveling along the cowl in between the vanes will inherently cool down the cowl thus the motor inside the cowl thus, they too also act as cooling ribs for the motor inside the cowl.
Further, the Examiner notes that the reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.Cir.1993).
Still furtther, 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/Decker 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].
There is no specific structure claimed or otherwise disclosed by Applicant which makes this interpretation unreasonable.
With specific regard to claim 9, Applicant argues that since “Claim 9 specifies a position and longitudinal extent of the cooling ribs (21) relative to the impeller housing (15). Lawrence teaches fins 4 that are part of and rotate with a hub 2 of an impeller 1 for an axial fan. Lawrence teaches that "this arrangement expels air from behind the hub, there by creating a circulation which cools down the fan motor", and thus, Lawrence does not disclose the rest of the axial fan of which the hub is a part, so there is no way of assessing the position of the disclosed fins relative to an impeller housing or if the axial fan of Lawrence even includes an impeller housing” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 8, third paragraph). Further, Applicant asserts that “The rejection of claim 9 argues that one skilled in the art would "combine the teaching of using 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." This ignores the fact that the cooling ribs of claim 9 are stationary and the longitudinal extent of the cooling ribs of claim 9 has no relationship to the strength of the cooling airflow in the impeller machine of claims 1 and 9” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 8, third paragraph).
However, as stated above in the analysis for the dependent claim 9, the only reason cooling ribs in Applicant’s invention extend beyond a downstream end of the impeller housing is because the motor housing extends beyond the impeller housing and the ribs will also naturally extend beyond the impeller housing because the whole length of the motor housing would need to be cooled by the ribs.
Still further, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981 ); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also, it has been held “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”); MPEP 2145(III).
With regard to the dependent claim 14, the crux of Applicant’s arguments is that: “The rejection finds that Meier teaches routing connection cables 123 through a kidney-shaped opening 181 in a bearing shield 18 of the motor 12. From this, the rejection argues that Meier teaches "using the cable inside the cooling body." This conclusion is unsupported. Meier teaches routing electrical conductors axially through a bearing shield, not a cooling body. Further, the aero stator of claims 1 and 14 is not "a cooling body" and is not "inside the motor housing." Meier, in combination with Kim and Schübeler does not teach or suggest the impeller machine of claim 14.” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 9, last paragraph).
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Examiner pointed out that Meier reference was brought explicitly for the purpose of showing how the connection cable 123 passes through the axial opening to further traverse the space between the motor housing and impeller housing. Clearly, this connecting cable 123 is being routed through the axial opening while being positioned within the cooling rib structure 11 or inside the motor housing.
Indeed, as stated above in the analysis for the dependent claim 14, Meier explicitly 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 (see Paragraph [0083]).
Certainly, just because the combination of Kim/of Schübeler/ Decker/ Meier demonstrates another arrangement of the motor housing not envisioned by Applicant, these do not discredit the motor housing also disclosed by Kim/of Schübeler/ Decker/ Meier.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that the test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLauqhlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (see MPEP 2144 [R-07.2015]).
Due to the aforementioned reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive and so the current rejections are not being withdrawn.
Conclusion
14. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights