DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ROTOR ASSEMBLY FOR AN ELECTRIC MOTOR WITH FAN COUPLED TO ROTOR BY A TORQUE COUPLING.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rapant et al. (US20220014055, “Rapant”).
Re claim 1, Rapant discloses an electric motor comprising:
a stator (figs 2 & 26, [0041], note: employing both embodiments of figs 2-8 & figs 25-17 for rejections); and
a rotor assembly 100, 1600 at least partially received in the stator (figs 2 & 26, stator inherently around rotor as indicated by structure of rotor), the rotor assembly 100, 1600 including a rotor body 122, 1622 (figs 2-3 & 26, [0045] & [0069]) including a lamination stack 112, 1612 (figs 2-3, 8 & 26, [0041] & [0054]), the lamination stack 112, 1612 defining a central aperture 150 (figs 2-4, 7 & 26, [0047]),
a fan 126, 1626 formed separately from the rotor body 122, 1622 (figs 3, 6 & 26-27, [0045] & [0069]), the fan 126, 1626 being coupled to the rotor body 122, 1626 by a torque coupling (figs 3-7 & 26-27, [0051-0052] & [0069-0070]), and
a shaft 104, 1604 including an outer surface 170 (figs 3 & 26, [0048]), the shaft 104, 1604 being pressed into the central aperture 150 of the lamination stack 112, 1612 with the outer surface 170 engaged with the central aperture by an interference fit (fig 7, [0048] & [0069], embodiment of figs 25-27 doesn’t specifically disclose an interference fit for the rotor & shaft but says it’s a similar molded rotor assembly as rotor assembly 100).
Re claim 7, Rapant discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses one of the rotor body 122, 1622 and the fan 126, 1626 includes a snap-fit protrusion 146, 1646 (figs 3-5, 7 & fig 26, [0051] & [0069], in figs rotor body but discloses opposite-see [0053]) and the other of the rotor body 122, 1626 and the fan 126, 1626 includes a snap-fit hole (figs 2, 6-7 & 27, [0052] & [0069], hole of hub 226 & 1626; in figs fan but discloses opposite-see [0053]), and wherein the snap-fit protrusion 146, 1646 is configured to engage the snap-fit hole by a snap-fit to form the torque coupling (figs 3-7 & 26, [0053] & [0069-0070).
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 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.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapant in view of Lee et al. (KR20150029336, “Lee”, using machine translation).
Re claim 21, Rapant discloses claim 7 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the rotor body includes an axial end surface into which the snap-fit hole extends.
Lee discloses the rotor body 120 includes an axial end surface into which the snap-fit hole 127 extends (figs 5-6, pg 3, indicated text to pg 4, 1st indicated text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the rotor body of Rapant to include an axial end surface into which the snap-fit hole extends, as disclosed by Lee, in order to fix the fan to the rotor body without additional fixing means, as taught by Lee (pg 4, 2nd indicated text).
Re claim 22, Rapant in view of Lee discloses claim 21 as discussed above and further discloses the snap-fit hole 127 is a blind hole extending perpendicularly from the axial end surface (Lee, figs 5-6).
Re claim 23, Rapant in view of Lee discloses claim 21 as discussed above and further discloses the snap-fit hole 127 defines both a radially inner hole surface closest to the outer surface of the shaft 100 (Lee, figs 5-6 & below) and a radially outer hole surface outboard of the radially inner surface relative to the outer surface of the shaft 100 (Lee, figs 5-6 & below).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claims 24 and 25, Rapant in view of Lee discloses claim 21 as discussed above and further discloses:
the snap-fit hole 127 includes a hole radially outer portion in communication with the axial end surface (Lee, figs 5-6 & below), and a hole radially inner portion separated from the radially outer portion by a hole shoulder and axially adjacent to the radially outer portion (Lee, figs 5-6 & below); and
wherein the snap-fit protrusion 136 includes a protrusion radially inner portion 136b engageable with the hole radially inner portion (Lee, figs 5-6 & below, pg 4, 1st indicated text), a protrusion radially outer portion 136a engageable with the hole radially outer portion (Lee, figs 5-6 & below), and a protrusion shoulder between the protrusion radially inner portion and the protrusion radially outer portion (Lee, figs 5-6 & below), the protrusion shoulder being engageable with the hole shoulder (Lee, figs 5-6 & below).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rapant (US20220014055) does not disclose the laminated stack of the rotor body is both laminated and has the shaft pressed into the central aperture with the outer surface engaged with the central aperture by an interference fit (pg 5, 2nd to last paragraph to pg 6). Examiner disagrees.
None of applicants arguments are persuasive since Rapant discloses the embodiment of figures 2-8 is interference fit ([0048] & below) and that the rotor has laminations (figs 8 & below).
PNG
media_image3.png
64
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
174
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (571)270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights