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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the claims filed 10/6/2025, applicant did not provide proper mark-up indicating changes to the claims. For example, claims 15-20 were missing, and e.g. changes made to other claims were not properly indicated such as the “and” in claim 1 of the claims filed 5/27/2024 at line 18 was missing in the claims filed 10/6/2025. The examiner suggested claims 1-20 should be canceled and renumbered claims should be presented so that the record is clear going forward. Applicant did not renumber the claims. Now in the amendment filed 5/1/2026, applicant once again improperly indicated amendments to the claims e.g. changes to the first line of claim 2 were not properly indicated. These are only examples. The examiner does not have time to point all the improper mark-ups. Once again, the examiner strongly suggests that claims 1-20 should be canceled and renumbered claims should be presented so that the record is clear going forward.
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 2-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states a “stator winding”. Claim 2 refers to a first stator winding and a second stator winding. It is unclear if these are three separate stator windings, or not. Claim 3 refers to the stator winding. It is unclear which stator winding this refers to.
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to claims containing one or more of these terms indicated above.
The claims will be examined as best understood and interpretations of the indefinite terminology will be provided as mappings to known structures of the prior art as indicated in the prior art rejections below.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro JPS614895A in view of Kudo US 20040145250 in further view of Nishizawa US 20080260526 in further view of Kato US 20110142612.
In Fig 2, Kazuhiro discloses:
(Claim 1) A rotating machine comprising: a fixed shaft 1; a stator assembly having a first stator part 2 coupled to an outer surface of the fixed shaft 1 (see e.g. Fig 2), and a second stator part 3 coupled to an outer surface of the fixed shaft 1 (see e.g. Fig 2), the first and second stator parts being spaced apart from each other along an axis of the fixed shaft, each of the first and second stator parts including a stator iron core and a stator winding wound around the stator iron core (see annotated Fig 2 herein); a rotor assembly (4, 6, 7, 17; 5, 8, 9, 18) rotatably supported by the fixed shaft, wherein the rotor assembly includes: a first rotor assembly (5, 8, 9, 18) including a first rotor assembly support 9 having a space accommodating the first stator part, a first magnet 5 installed on an inner surface of the first rotor assembly support, and a first propeller 8 installed on an outer surface of the first rotor assembly support; and a second rotor assembly (4, 6, 7, 17) including a second rotor assembly support 7 having a space accommodating the second stator part, a second magnet 4 installed on an inner surface of the second rotor assembly support, and a second propeller 6 installed on an outer surface of the second rotor assembly support, wherein the first rotor assembly and the second rotor assembly are disposed to be side-by-side along the axis of the fixed shaft (see e.g. Fig 2) and configured to rotate in opposite directions (see the title “Contrarotating axial fan” and the beginning of the description section including “The present invention relates to a reversible axial flow blower that relatively rotates two runners disposed adjacent to each other in opposite directions”); wherein the first rotor assembly support and the second rotor assembly support are disposed outside the stator assembly (as best understood, see Fig 2), and wherein the first rotor assembly and the second rotor assembly are respectively separated from the first stator part and the second stator part across a first motor air gap and a second motor air gap (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein).
It would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the core 2, 3 of Kazuhiro would be made of iron and the magnets 4, 5 of Kazuhiro would be permanent magnets but Kazuhiro does not specify these details.
However, Kudo discloses the use of a permanent magnet 27 (see e.g. 0027) motor with an iron core 9 (see e.g. 0021) and windings 13 for driving a fan (see e.g. 0023).
A simple substitution of one known fan motor for another with the predictable result of rotating a fan has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize permanent magnet motors as taught by Kudo as a simple substitution for the motors of Kazuhiro to gain the benefit of utilizing a motor type know for driving fans.
Kazuhiro discloses wherein the stator assembly includes a motor support connected to the fixed shaft (see annotated Fig 2 herein), wherein the stator assembly includes a fluid duct support having one end connected to the motor support and another end connected to a fluid duct (see annotated Fig 2 herein), the fluid duct being disposed outside the first propeller and the second propeller to guide an external fluid toward one of the first propeller or the second propeller (see annotated Fig 2 herein),
Kazuhiro does not disclose at least one cooling hole configured to facilitate heat dissipation; the motor support being disposed between the first stator part and the second stator part, wherein the at least one cooling hole includes a motor-support cooling hole passing through the motor support, a first rotor assembly support-cooling hole passing through the first rotor assembly support, and a second rotor assembly support-cooling hole passing through the second rotor assembly support, and wherein the motor-support cooling hole is disposed between the first rotor assembly and the second rotor assembly and fluidly communicates an interior space of the first rotor assembly with an interior space of the second rotor assembly, and the first and second rotor assembly support- cooling holes are configured to place exterior fluid in fluid communication with interior fluid of the rotating machine.
Nishizawa discloses at least one cooling hole (comprising 67A-67D) configured to facilitate heat dissipation; wherein the stator assembly (81 181) includes a motor support (27, 53) being disposed between the first stator part and the second stator part (see e.g. Fig 1), wherein the stator assembly includes a fluid duct support (stationary blades 69A-69E) having one end connected to the motor support and another end connected to a fluid duct (21, 39), the fluid duct being disposed outside the first propeller and the second propeller (95, 195) to guide an external fluid toward one of the first propeller or the second propeller, wherein the at least one cooling hole includes a motor-support cooling hole (67A-67D) passing through the motor support, a first rotor assembly support-cooling hole 93C passing through the first rotor assembly support, and a second rotor assembly support-cooling hole 193C passing through the second rotor assembly support, and wherein the motor-support cooling hole is disposed between the first rotor assembly and the second rotor assembly and fluidly communicates an interior space of the first rotor assembly with an interior space of the second rotor assembly, and the first and second rotor assembly support- cooling holes are configured to place exterior fluid in fluid communication with interior fluid of the rotating machine (see e.g. Fig 1 and associated description). Additionally, Kato discloses that it is known to utilize stationary blades between counterrotating fan stages in order to reduce noise (see e.g. the abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize a centrally located stator support and air cooling holes as taught by Nishizawa and to in the system of Kazuhiro as modified above to gain the benefit of providing the ability to reduce noise by disposing stationary blades between counterrotating fans as disclosed by Kato in 0004 and to gain the benefit of cooling the stator parts.
PNG
media_image1.png
753
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kazuhiro as modified above discloses (all references to Kazuhiro unless noted otherwise):
2. (Currently Amended) The rotating machine of claim 1, wherein the first stator part includes a first stator winding wound around a first stator iron core (see annotated 1 herein) and the second stator part includes a second stator winding wound around a second stator iron core (see annotated Fig 1 herein), and wherein the first stator part includes a circumferential portion facing the first permanent magnet and the second stator part includes a circumferential portion facing the second permanent magnet (see radially outer circumferential portions of 2 and 3 facing 5 and 6 respectively.
(Claim 7) The rotating machine of claim 6, wherein the motor support extends radially outward to support the first rotor assembly support and the second rotor assembly support (see Fig 2 of Kazuhiro wherein the motor support supports both fans including the fan rotors and see Fig 1 of Nishizawa wherein the motor support (27, 53) supports both fans including the fan rotors).
PNG
media_image2.png
663
1302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Claim 9) The rotating machine of claim 1, wherein the first rotation rotor assembly and the second rotor assembly are spaced apart from each other (as best understood, see Fig 2 of Kazuhiro).
(Claim 10) The rotating machine of claim 1, wherein at least one of the stator assembly, the first permanent magnet, and the second permanent magnet is treated with a waterproof coating (see e.g. the title of Kudo and 0025 of Kudo including “A molded part 45 is formed on the inner cylindrical section 37. The molded part 45 is injection molded with an insulating resin made of an urethane resin in such a manner that the stator 1, electronic components 15, and circuit substrate 3 are included in its inside.”).
(Claim 11) The rotating machine of claim 1, further comprising a bearing (as best understood, see 12, 11) disposed between the rotor assembly and the stator assembly for rotating the rotor assembly relative to the stator assembly.
(Claim 12) The rotating machine of claim 11, wherein the bearing includes a first shaft bearing (as best understood, see 12) disposed between the fixed shaft and the first rotor frame, and a second shaft bearing (as best understood, see 11) disposed between the fixed shaft and the second rotor frame.
(Claim 13) The rotating machine of claim 11, wherein the bearing includes a first motor support bearing 19 disposed between the motor support (center support of Nishizawa) and the first rotor assembly support (19 is between the axially outer portion of 18 and the center support Nishizawa) and a second motor support bearing 10 disposed between the motor support (center support of Nishizawa ) and the second rotor assembly support (10 is between the axially outer portion of 18 and the center support Nishizawa).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro JPS614895A in view of Kudo US 20040145250 in further view of Nishizawa US 20080260526 in further view of Kato US 20110142612 in further view of Shimokawa US 20230243360.
Regarding claims 3-4, Kazuhiro as modified above discloses wherein the stator assembly includes a slot disposed in each of the first and second iron cores and the stator winding is wound around each of the first and second iron cores and (see e.g. 0021 of Kudo including “The stator 1 includes an iron core 9 constituted from a plurality of laminated steel plates. The iron core 9 has a plurality of projecting pole portions 11 arranged in a circumferential direction. A winding 13 is wound around each of the projecting pole portions 11 of the iron core 9 through an insulator 10 formed of an insulating resin. These projecting portions 11 function as stator magnetic poles when the wirings 13 are excited. Accordingly, the tip end surface of each of the projecting portions 11 becomes a pole face 11a of the stator magnetic pole.”). However, neither Kazuhiro nor Kudo disclose the number of poles and magnets and thus do not disclose the other limitations of claim 3-4.
However, the number of poles and slots are known design parameters for electric motors and their selection is simply a design choice. Additionally, Shimokawa discloses Q = 12, P1 = 10, and P2 = 14 (see e.g. “ A combination of the number P of magnetic poles and the number S of slots is one of P=8 and S=9, P=10 and S=9, P=10 and S=12 and P=14 and S=12.” in the abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize P1-10, P2=12, Q=10 as taught by Shimokawa in the motors of Kazuhiro as modified above to gain the benefit of “to reduce the harmonic components included in the surface magnetic flux of the rotor and inhibit an increase in vibration due to an exciting force in the radial direction acting on the rotor. Accordingly, the noise of the blower can be reduced” as taught by Shimokawa in 0008.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
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.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights