DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 31 October 2025. Claims 1 – 9 and 15 – 20 are pending and currently being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The previously made claim objections are hereby withdrawn in view of suitable amendments to the claims submitted with applicant’s response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 9 and 15 – 20 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.
In Re Claim 1, the limitation “a heat dissipation fin that faces an axial side surface of each of the plurality of bearings” is indefinite for the following reason. In Figure 4, for example, heat dissipation fin (140b) faces an axial side surface of bearing (118b), but it does not face an axial side surface of the other bearing (118a) due to in-between rotor (119) whose in-between position has been claimed. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --a heat dissipation fin that faces an axial side surface of one of the plurality of bearings-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 1, the limitation “wherein the rotating blade is disposed between the rotor and each of the plurality of bearings” is indefinite because the rotor (119) is in between the two bearings (118a) and (118b). For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation “wherein the rotating blade is disposed between the rotor and one of the plurality of bearings” will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 1, this claim recites the limitation “the bearing” in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not clear which one of the plurality of bearings in Line 6 is being referenced. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --said one of the plurality of bearings-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 7, the disclosed heat dissipation fin only contacts the axial end face of one bearing, therefore the limitation “the heat dissipation fin contacts the axial side surface of each of the plurality of bearings” is indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --the heat dissipation fin contacts the axial side surface of one of the plurality of bearings-- will be assumed instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 15 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (PG Pub US 20180076682 A1) in view of Arvintz (US Patent 2,877,724 A) and as evidenced by Dib (PG Pub US 20200067385 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Hwang discloses a fan motor (Figures 1 and 2) comprising: a rotational shaft (3) that mounts an impeller (71); a motor (“M”) configured to drive the rotational shaft (3), the motor including: a rotor (4) connected to the rotational shaft, and a stator (2) engaging the rotor (4); a bearing (5 or 6) supporting the rotational shaft (3); a plurality of bearings (5, 6) that are disposed at both sides of the rotational shaft (bearing 5 is disposed on one side of rotor 4, and bearing 6 is disposed on the other side of rotor 4) with the rotor (4) interposed therebetween and support the rotational shaft (paragraphs [0044],[0048],[0057],[0064],[0065]; Figures 1, 2).
Hwang does not disclose a heat dissipation fin that faces an axial side surface of the bearing.
However, Figure 1 of Arvintz discloses a heat dissipation fin (34 or 31) that faces an axial side surface of the bearing (23 or 22) and is mounted at the rotational shaft (24) for mounting impeller (27), wherein the heat dissipation fin (34 or 31) includes a rotating blade (there are two blades depicted in Figure 1) that is disposed coaxially with the rotational shaft (24) and configured to rotate to thereby blow air to the bearing (Column 1, Lines 64 – 66; Column 2, Lines 4 – 6; Column 2, Lines 11 – 14; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the cooling fin / rotating blade of Arvintz adjacent an axial end face of the bearing(s) of Hwang for the purpose of cooling the bearing (Column 2, Lines 11 – 14 of Arvintz).
With regards to the claimed location of the cooling fin / rotating blade between the rotor and the bearing, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the cooling fin / rotating blade of Arvintz can only be located as claimed if it is to perform its intended function of blowing air to the axial end face of the bearing of Hwang. Further, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to position the cooling fan where it will provide the most effective cooling of the bearings. As it has been held, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Note also that the claimed position of the cooling fin / rotating blade between the rotor and the bearing is well known in the art as evidenced by Dib (Figure 5) which discloses a first heat dissipation fin / rotating blade (181) that is mounted on the rotational shaft (160) and disposed between the first bearing (171) and the rotor (150), and a second heat dissipation fin / rotating blade (182) that is mounted on the rotational shaft (160) and disposed between the second bearing (172) and the rotor (150); (paragraphs [0037],[0055],[0057],[0081],[0086]; Figure 5). Dib is therefore evidence of predictability for the chosen location of the fin as claimed (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 excerpt of Arvintz
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Arvintz discloses that the heat dissipation fin (34) further comprises: a ring portion (see annotated figure above) surrounding the rotational shaft (reduced diameter end portion of 24) and coupled to the rotational shaft (in order for the apparatus to function as disclosed), wherein the rotating blade includes two rotating blades disposed at an outer circumferential surface of the ring portion as depicted.
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Arvintz discloses that the rotating blade protrudes outward in a radial direction of the rotational shaft (24) as depicted.
PNG
media_image2.png
570
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 1 of Colwell
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Arvintz discloses that the heat dissipation fin (31) contacts the axial side surface of the bearing (22) (see annotated figure above).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hwang discloses that the plurality of bearings (5, 6) include a first bearing (5) and a second bearing (6), the first bearing (5) is adjacent to the impeller (71), the second bearing (6) is spaced apart from the first bearing (5) as depicted, and Arvintz discloses that the heat dissipation fin includes: a first heat dissipation fin (34) disposed at an axial side of the first bearing (23) that is adjacent to the impeller (27), and a second heat dissipation fin (31) disposed at an axial side of the second bearing (22) that is spaced apart from the first bearing, in an opposite direction to the first impeller (27) in an opposite direction to the impeller (27) (Figure 1).
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Hwang discloses a casing (12, 13, 14) surrounding the stator (2) and accommodating the rotational shaft (3) inserted through a center of the stator (2), wherein the casing comprises: a first housing (13) accommodating the impeller (71), a second housing (14) coupled to a downstream side of the first housing (13) based on a flow direction of air suctioned by the impeller (71), a vane hub (74, 84, 86, 81, 82; paragraph [0107]) disposed at a downstream side of the impeller (71) based on the flow direction of the air, a plurality of vanes (76, 77) protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the vane hub (74, 84, 86, 81, 82) toward an inner circumferential surface of the first housing (13), and a third housing (12) coupled to a downstream side of the vane hub (74, 84, 86, 81, 82) based on the flow direction of the air and mounting the stator (paragraph [0048] states that 12 is formed in the motor body, and paragraph [0057] states that the stator 2 is mounted to the motor body), wherein the first heat dissipation fin (in view of the Arvintz modification) is accommodated inside the vane hub (74, 84, 86, 81, 82), and wherein the second heat dissipation fin (in view of the Arvintz modification) is accommodated inside the third housing (12) (Figure 1).
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, the Arvintz modification is made to both bearings of Hwang, and it is obvious that the first heat dissipation fin would have to contact the downstream side surface of the first bearing based on an air flow direction and the second heat dissipation fin would have to contact the upstream side surface of the second bearing based on the air flow direction for an effective cooling of the bearings.
In Re Claim 18, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 16, and Figure 1 of Hwang discloses a cover portion (see where label “75” points to in Figure 1, this portion of the body 75 is being designated the cover portion) extending radially from an axial end portion (81, 82) of the vane hub (as depicted) and disposed between the impeller (71) and the first bearing (5); a first bearing housing (86) protruding axially from an inside of the cover portion and surrounding the first bearing (5); and an axial movement restricting portion (81) protruding radially from the inside of the cover portion and contacting an upstream side surface of the first bearing (5) (Figures 1, 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Hwang
In Re Claim 19, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 16, and Figure 1 of Hwang discloses a second bearing housing (15; paragraph [0093]) extending in an axial direction and surrounding the second bearing (6); and a bridge (see annotated rectangle in figure above) extending in a radial direction from an outer circumferential surface of the second bearing housing (15) toward an inner circumferential surface of the third housing (12), the bridge connecting the second bearing housing to the third housing.
In Re Claim 20, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Figure 1 of Hwang discloses a first bearing support portion (54, 55, 56) that supports the first bearing (5); and a second bearing support portion (64, 65, 66) that supports the second bearing (6), and wherein a diameter (of 56) of the first bearing support portion is larger than a diameter (of 65) of the second bearing support portion (paragraphs [0081],[0103]). Note also that the reduced diameter bottom portion of the shaft supports the second bearing (6), and the larger diameter part (32) of the shaft supports the first bearing (5). So the reduced diameter bottom portion of the shaft also reads on a second bearing support portion, and (32) also reads on a first bearing support portion.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (PG Pub US 20180076682 A1) in view of Arvintz (US Patent 2,877,724 A) and as evidenced by Dib (PG Pub US 20200067385 A1) and further in view of Colwell (US Patent 5,375,651 A).
In Re Claim 3, Hwang, Arvintz and Dib discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose a connecting portion protruding in a radial direction from the ring portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
630
876
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9 of Colwell
PNG
media_image5.png
382
854
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 6 of Colwell
However, Figure 9 of Colwell discloses a heat dissipation fin (30) comprising a ring portion (see annotated figure above) surrounding the rotational shaft (13) and coupled to the rotational shaft (13); and a connection portion (see annotated figure above) protruding in a radial direction from an axial end portion (see annotated figure above) of the ring portion (the joint between the connection portion and the axial end portion is clearer in Figure 6 annotated above), wherein the rotating blade includes a plurality of rotating blades (label “32”; this label is not in the description) provided at an outer circumferential surface of the connection portion and being spaced apart from one another (Column 3, Lines 12 – 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to attach the blades of Hwang / Arvintz / Dib to the ring portion through a connection portion, in light of the teachings of Colwell, as is known in the art.
PNG
media_image6.png
382
854
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 6 of Colwell
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Colwell discloses (see annotated figure above) that the rotating blade is inclined with respect to an axial direction of the shaft (13).
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Colwell discloses that the heat dissipation fin (30) includes a metal material (“aluminum” or “steel”; Column 3, Lines 12 – 13).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (PG Pub US 20180076682 A1) in view of Arvintz (US Patent 2,877,724 A) and as evidenced by Dib (PG Pub US 20200067385 A1) and further in view of Lin (PG Pub US 20200049159 A1).
In Re Claim 6, Hwang, Arvintz and Dib discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose that the blade has a curved shape in an axial and circumferential direction.
However, Figure 1 of Lin discloses a blade (121 or 122; paragraph [0017]) that has a curved shape in an axial and circumferential direction as depicted.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form the blades of Arvintz in the device of Hwang / Arvintz / Dib such that they have a curved shape in an axial and circumferential direction as taught by Lin in order to increase the axial flow rate (Lin, paragraph [0005]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (PG Pub US 20180076682 A1) in view of Arvintz (US Patent 2,877,724 A) and as evidenced by Dib (PG Pub US 20200067385 A1) and further in view of Wrobel (US Patent 4,734,015 A).
In Re Claim 9, Hwang, Arvintz and Dib disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hwang discloses a bearing housing (15) surrounding the bearing (6), and a bearing housing (8) surrounding the bearing (5), but Hwang and Arvintz do not disclose that the bearing housing includes plastic.
However, Wrobel discloses a bearing housing (77, 78, 79; Figure 7) which is made of plastic (Column 5, Lines 64 – 65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form the bearing housing of Hwang in the device of Hwang / Arvintz / Dib from plastic as taught by Wrobel because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 8 of Applicant’s Response that “Rather, as shown in Arvintz's FIG. 1, Arvintz's motor 29 does not appear to be disposed between Arvintz's bearings 23 and 22. Moreover, Arvintz's coolant fan 34 or 31 is not "disposed between the rotor and each of the plurality of bearings," as claimed”.
Examiner’s Response: One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). With regards to the claimed location of the cooling fin / rotating blade between the rotor and the bearing, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the cooling fin / rotating blade of Arvintz can only be located as claimed if it is to perform its intended function of blowing air to the axial end face of the bearing of Hwang as outlined in the above rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746