DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 20 January 2026. Claims 1 – 4 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a heat radiation member” in claim Claims 1 and 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 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.
In Re Claim 1, this claim recites the limitation “the stator core” in Lines 10 – 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation a stator core will be assumed instead.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (PG Pub US 20150044076 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
870
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Huang
In Re Claim 1, Huang discloses a motor pump (the disclosed fan in the title is a motor driven air pump), comprising: an impeller (2) accommodating a permanent magnet (see annotated figure above; this is a well known component that is located in the hub 218); a pump casing (a casing is part of any conventional centrifugal fan that has an inlet and outlet disclosed in paragraph [0057]) accommodating the impeller (2); a motor stator (12) having a plurality of stator coils (paragraph [0061]: “plurality of coils”); a motor casing (4) accommodating the motor stator (paragraph [0068]: “The motor 1 is disposed on the base 4”); a heat radiation member (13; paragraph [0069]: “frame 13 is made of metal material such as, for example but not limited to, copper, iron, aluminum, or any metal with high thermal conductivity”) closing an accommodation space (133) formed in the motor casing (4), the heat radiation member (13) being arranged between the motor casing (4) and a suction port (where A3 flows into in Figure 4; paragraph [0067] describes flow A3); a substrate (14; paragraph [0061]) connected to the stator coils (paragraph [0063]: “the coils winding around the pole arms 121 are electrically connected to the first circuit board 14”) and arranged in the accommodation space (133); and a heat transfer ring (131; note that it is an integral part of / one piece construction with heat radiation member 13, and is therefore capable of heat transfer to the radiation member 13) mounted on the substrate (see annotated figure above; paragraph [0063]: “ the first circuit board 14 is telescoped to the bushing 131”) between the heat radiation member (13) and a stator core (121; Figure 6A).
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuronuma (PG Pub US 20190257319 A1) in view of Huang (PG Pub US 20150044076 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Kuronuma discloses a motor pump (title; Figure 1), comprising: an impeller (1) accommodating a permanent magnet (5); a pump casing (2) accommodating the impeller (1); a motor stator (6) having a plurality of stator coils (6b); a motor casing (3) accommodating the motor stator (6); a heat radiation member (20a/20) closing an accommodation space (paragraph [0062]: “interior of the motor casing 3”; paragraph [0067]: “housing space”) formed in the motor casing (3), the heat radiation member (20) being arranged between the motor casing (3) and a suction port (15); a substrate (paragraph [0053]: “drive circuit” is known to be a circuit board) connected to the stator coils (paragraph [0053]: “Three lead wires 17 (see FIG. 2) are coupled to the stator coils 6B, and terminals of the lead wires 17 are coupled to a drive circuit”); and a heat transfer ring (20b) between the heat radiation member (20a/20) and a stator core (6A); (paragraphs [0041],[0042],[0046],[0053],[0062],[0066] – [0070]; Figures 1, 2, 4A, 7).
Kuronuma does not disclose that the substrate is in the accommodation space between the heat radiation member and the stator core and the heat transfer ring is mounted on the substrate.
PNG
media_image2.png
694
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6B of Huang
However, Huang discloses that the substrate (14) is in the accommodation space (133) between the heat radiation member (13) and the stator core (121) and the heat transfer ring (131; see shaded region in annotated figure 6B above; note that it is an integral part of / one piece construction with heat radiation member 13 and is therefore capable of heat transfer to the heat radiation member 13; the stator core 121 is mounted at 1311 therefore any heat generated by the stator core would be transferred to ring 131) is mounted on the substrate (Annotated Figure 3 above; paragraphs [0062],[0063]); Figures 6A,6B).
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 mount the implied substrate of Kuronuma to the heat transfer ring between the heat radiation member and the stator core as taught by Huang for the purpose of making the device compact (the substrate/drive circuit of Kuronuma appears to be outside the apparatus as evidenced by the lead wires 17 in Figure 2, Huang’s modification would bring the drive circuit/substrate into the apparatus thus making it more compact). Note that ring (131) of Huang is analogous to ring (20b) of Kuronuma because they are both in a heat transfer path from the stator core to the heat radiation member.
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and in the modified apparatus, the substrate (14) of Huang would be mounted to ring (20b) of Kuronuma, therefore the substrate (14) of Huang would be mounted radially outside suction port (15) of Kuronuma coupled to a liquid flow channel (14) of Kuronuma formed in the motor casing (3) of Kuronuma.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuronuma (PG Pub US 20190257319 A1) in view of Huang (PG Pub US 20150044076 A1) and further in view of Lin (PG Pub US 20120269666 A1).
In Re Claim 3, Kuronuma and Huang disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and although Kuronuma discloses potting material in the accommodating space and Huang separately discloses a substrate in the accommodating space, Kuronuma and Huang do not explicitly disclose that the substrate is covered with the potting material.
However, Lin discloses that substrate (50) is covered with potting material (160) (paragraph [0035]; 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 cover the substrate of Kuronuma / Lin with the potting material as taught by Lin for the purpose of improving waterproofing properties and improve durability of the product (paragraph [0034] of Lin).
PNG
media_image3.png
692
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 of Kuronuma
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and above annotated Figure 7 of Kuronuma discloses that the potting material (50; paragraph [0062]) is filled in the accommodation space (paragraph [0062]: “interior of the motor casing 3”; paragraph [0067]: “housing space”), forming a gap (see annotated figure 7 above) adjacent to heat radiation member (20a/20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant’s Response that “Nowhere does '319 disclose any intermediate thermally conductive ring positioned between the stator core and the heat radiation member .. .. The Office Action does not identify any structure in '319 that corresponds to or performs the functions of Applicant's heat transfer ring.”.
Examiner’s Response: Fixing ring (20b) reads on a thermally conductive ring (paragraph [0067] clearly states that the ring (20b) has a high thermal conductivity). The fixing ring (20b) is clearly positioned between stator core (6a) and heat radiation member (20a/20) as depicted in Figure 1. Further, the ring (20b) makes direct contact with the stator core (6A) as stated in paragraph [0068] and depicted in Figure 1, therefore any heat generated by the stator core (6A) is transferred by conduction to the ring (20b) and subsequently to heat radiation member (20a/20).
The rest of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in this office action.
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
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights