DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on December 2, 2025. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 4, 9, and 16, and cancelled Claims 2 and 3. Claims 1, and 4 – 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous title objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
With regards to the prior art rejections, applicant amended the independent claims to incorporate features of previous claims 2 and 3. Applicant argues that neither Kondo’s nor Ueno’s impellers are positioned at an axial end of their respective covers. Examiner agrees and prior art rejection based on these references as primary references are withdrawn. Applicant further argues that Keber’s base plate 92 is an integral component of the impeller hub 5 and Keber’s blades 9 have trailing edges that terminate at cover plate 11 and extend directly from Keber’s cover. Therefore, Keber does not include an intermediary central hub positioned adjacent an axial end of a cover and a plurality of blades that extend radially outward of the hub. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given that the cover, the central hub, and the blades are all integrally formed of a single piece, there is no clear distinction between where one portion starts and ends – certainly not in the claim language as proposed. In Keber, one of ordinary art would reasonably assign the recited “cover” as the portion of impeller hub 5 that extends along the axis RA parallel with rotor body 14, and would also assign the recited “central hub” as the portion of impeller hub 5 that transition diagonally and then perpendicularly from the above “cover” portion to and including the base plate 92. As shown in Figure 1, the blades 9 extend radially outwards from the disclosed central hub portion. As such, an axial end of the “cover” portion comprises a “central hub” portion and the blades extend radially outward therefrom, meeting the claim requirements. Previous rejections over Keber stand. Other rejections are modified, as necessitated by amendment, to incorporate Keber.
For the sake of compact prosecution, examiner suggests applicant amend to better distinguish the start and end of the “cover” and “central hub” portions in the recited single piece construction, and to limit the axial extension of the blades to just the hub portion, as shown in Figure 3 of the present disclosure.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the fan includes a hub coupled to the cover. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because Claim 9, upon which Claim 11 depends, already introduced a central hub, making it unclear whether Claim 11 requires an additional hub or is attempting to refer to the hub of Claim 9. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as referring to the hub. NOTE that such an interpretation would also yield a 112d rejection for not further narrowing the scope of Claim 9. Examiner suggests cancelling Claim 11.
Claims 12 and 19 recite the blades extend radially outward from the exterior surface of the cover, and wherein each of the blades extends along a length of the cover. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because applicant amended the independent claims to focus on the embodiment of Figure 3. Claim 12 focuses on the embodiment of Figure 6, in which the blades extend from the cover. Since Claim 12 is dependent on Claim 9, it is incompatible with the language of Claim 9. The lack of an art rejection is not evidence of allowability. The incompatibility in the language prevents determination of allowability.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on Claim 19.
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, 4, 8 – 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Keber et al. (hereafter “Keber” – US 12060887).
With regards to Claims 1, 9, and 11:
Keber discloses a brushless DC electric motor (Figure 1), comprising:
a stator (stator 17);
an outer rotor (outer rotor 18, Figure 1) surrounding the stator, the outer rotor including
a rotor body (rotor bell 15);
a shaft (shaft 12) coupled for co-rotation with the rotor body, the shaft defining a rotational axis (axis RA);
a cover (portion of impeller hub 5 that extends along the axis RA parallel with rotor body 14) surrounding at least a portion of the rotor body (see Figure 1 and Col. 4, Line 19+); and
a fan (fan wheel 4) positioned at an axial end of and integrally formed with the cover as a single piece (Col. 3, Line 54: “The fan wheel 4 comprises a cover plate 11, impeller blades 9 arranged in a blade ring, and a base plate 92 which is an integral component of the impeller hub 5”), the fan including a central hub (portion of impeller hub 5 that transition diagonally and then perpendicularly from the above “cover” portion to and including the base plate 92) adjacent the axial end of the cover and a plurality of blades (blades 9) extending radially outward of the central hub, the blades configured to induce an airflow in a direction parallel with the rotational axis (see cooling air flow 55 in Figure 1).
With regards to Claims 4 and 10:
Keber discloses each of the blades extends farther from the rotational axis than the cover (see Figure 1 and Col. 4, Lines 41+, blades 9 extend radially father than hub 5 from axis RA).
With regards to Claim 8:
Keber discloses the cover extends a length of the rotor body (see Figure 1, portion of impeller hub 5 that extends along the axis RA parallel with rotor body 14 extends a length of the rotor body).
With regards to Claim 15:
Keber discloses the fan is configured as an axial-flow fan (see flow 55, which runs axially with axis RA).
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 of this title, 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 5, 7, 13, 14, and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keber et al. (hereafter “Keber” – US 12060887) in view of Kondo (JP 2001-244110).
With regards to Claim 5:
Keber does not explicitly disclose the cover and the fan are formed from plastic. Kondo (Figures 1 – 8) teaches a similar fan motor including a fan (fan 17) integrally formed with the cover (fan base 17a) as a single piece (see Paragraph 26 and Figures 7, 8, entire fan structure 17, including components 17a, 17b, 17c are insert molded onto the rotor 16). Kondo goes on to teach the cover (fan base 17a) and the fan are formed from plastic (Paragraph 26: “the fan section 17 is made of a thermoplastic resin such as polypropylene”). Use of plastic allows for cheap and simple manufacturing via e.g. injection or over molding. Given the teachings of Kondo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Keber by making the cover and fan of plastic in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claims 7 and 13:
Keber does not explicitly disclose the cover is overmolded onto the rotor body. Kondo, in the similar fan motor previously described, teaches the cover (fan base 17a) is overmolded onto the rotor body (see Figures 7, 8, and Paragraphs 30 – 34). Overmolding is known to reduce gaps between the molded component and the component upon which it is overmolded on, thereby ensuring a tight connection and protection. Given the teachings of Kondo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Keber by overmolding the cover onto the rotor body in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 14:
Keber does not explicitly disclose the rotor body is press-fit within the cover. Kondo, in the similar fan motor previously described, teaches the rotor body (rotor 16 comprising portions 31, 32, 33, 16a, 16b) is press-fit within the cover (Paragraph 45: difference in thermal shrinkage rate causes compression and joining of the cover and rotor body). Press-fitting components together reduces the need for additional fasteners, thereby simplifying assembly. Given the teachings of Kondo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Keber by press-fitting the rotor body within the cover in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 16:
Keber discloses a brushless DC electric motor (Figure 1), comprising:
a stator (stator 17);
an outer rotor (outer rotor 18, Figure 1) surrounding the stator, the outer rotor including
a rotor (rotor 18) and rotor body (rotor bell 15) defining a rotational axis (RA);
a cover (portion of impeller hub 5 that extends along the axis RA parallel with rotor body 14) surrounding at least a portion of the rotor body (see Figure 1 and Col. 4, Line 19+); and
a fan (fan wheel 4) positioned at an axial end of and integrally formed with the cover as a single piece (Col. 3, Line 54: “The fan wheel 4 comprises a cover plate 11, impeller blades 9 arranged in a blade ring, and a base plate 92 which is an integral component of the impeller hub 5”), the fan including a central hub (portion of impeller hub 5 that transition diagonally and then perpendicularly from the above “cover” portion to and including the base plate 92) adjacent the axial end of the cover and a plurality of blades (blades 9) extending radially outward of the central hub, the blades configured to induce an airflow in a direction parallel with the rotational axis (see cooling air flow 55 in Figure 1).
Keber does not explicitly disclose a ring magnet, instead appearing to teach coils and an induction motor. Kondo, in the similar fan motor previously described, teaches a ring magnet (rotor 16, see Figures 3, 4, and Paragraphs 24, 25, rotor 16 is “plastic magnet” and a “cup shape consisting of a closed end 16a at one end and a cylindrical portion 16b continuing from it”) defining a rotational axis (about shaft 15). Permanent magnets are widely known to be used in motor to generate a magnetic field and induce rotation. Kondo further teaches that a ring-shaped magnet aids in reducing vibration (Paragraph 10 of Kondo). Given theses teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Keber by replacing the unknown type of rotor with a ring magnet in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 17:
The Keber modification of Claim 16 does not explicitly teach the cover is overmolded onto the rotor body. Kondo, in the similar fan motor previously described, teaches the cover (fan base 17a) is overmolded onto the rotor body (see Figures 7, 8, and Paragraphs 30 – 34). Overmolding is known to reduce gaps between the molded component and the component upon which it is overmolded on, thereby ensuring a tight connection and protection. Given the teachings of Kondo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Keber by overmolding the cover onto the rotor body in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 18:
The Keber modification of Claim 16 does not explicitly teach the ring magnet is press-fit within the cover. Kondo, in the similar fan motor previously described, teaches the rotor body (rotor 16 comprising portions 31, 32, 33, 16a, 16b) is press-fit within the cover (Paragraph 45: difference in thermal shrinkage rate causes compression and joining of the cover and rotor body). Press-fitting components together reduces the need for additional fasteners, thereby simplifying assembly. Given the teachings of Kondo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Keber by press-fitting the rotor body within the cover in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keber et al. (hereafter “Keber” – US 12060887) in view of Ueno et al. (hereafter “Ueno” – US 6170275).
With regards to Claim 6:
Keber appears to disclose magnets positioned on an interior surface of the rotor body (see Figure 1, element abutting and radially inside roto bell 15), but there is no explicitly disclosure of such. Ueno (Figure 2) teaches a similar fan motor including a rotor body (rotor yoke 52) and a magnet (magnets 63) positioned on an interior surface of the rotor body, and wherein the magnet is coupled for co-rotation with the rotor body and the cover (Col. 5, Lines 29+: “twelve-pole rotor magnets 63 mounted on an inner circumference of the rotor yoke 62”). Permanent magnets are widely known to be used in motor to generate a magnetic field and induce rotation. Given the teachings of Ueno, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Keber by adding permanent magnets on the interior surface of the rotor body to rotate with the rotor body in order to aid in motor induced rotation.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Monday, January 12, 2026