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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 6 currently states:
“controlling an electric current through the sta-tor,
Should be changed to state:
--controlling an electric current through the [[sta-tor]] stator,
Claim 4 Line 2 currently states:
“claim 1, further comprising a motor housing en-closing the stator”.
Should be changed to state:
--claim 1, further comprising a motor housing [[en-closing]] enclosing the stator--.
Claim 4 Line 4 currently states:
“the closed liquid cooling circuit, such that liquid coolant flows between the stator and”.
Should be changed to state:
--the closed liquid cooling circuit, such that the liquid coolant flows between the stator and--.
Claim 16 Line 2 currently states:
“pump housing and an integrated electric motor drive according to”.
Should be changed to state:
--pump housing and [[an]] the integrated electric motor drive according to--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the movable parts" in Line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 1 Line 2 introduces the limitation rotatable parts, for examination purposes the limitation in question will be read as --the [[movable]] rotatable parts--.
Regarding Claim 12: Line 2-3 states: “wherein the fan is a radial fan arranged outside of a motor housing that encloses the stator and the power electronics.” It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically if the motor housing that encloses the stator and power electronics in claim 12 is the same as the motor housing recited in claim 10 or if it is a different motor housing? For examination purposes the language in question will be examined as --wherein the fan is a radial fan arranged outside of [[a]] the motor housing that encloses the stator and the power electronics--.
Finally; depending claim(s) inherit deficiencies from the parent claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 2015/0381014 in view of Hong US 2007/0107880.
Regarding Claim 1: Lee US 2015/0381014 discloses the limitations: An integrated electric motor drive (the integrated drive is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
rotatable parts comprising a drive shaft 1 and a rotor (40,41,42a,42b, ¶0043), wherein the drive shaft extends along a rotor axis (Fig 1) and the rotor is mechanically coupled to the drive shaft (¶0044); and
static parts comprising a stator (30, ¶0035-¶0037) and power electronics (i.e. inverter in the inverter housing 24 in Fig 1, Page 4, claim 19) for controlling an electric current through the stator (as known in the art inverters control the electric current flowing through the stator), wherein the integrated electric motor drive further comprises a liquid cooling system comprising a closed liquid cooling circuit (closed liquid cooling circuit = cooling circuit formed by the water storage tank, the fluid path between the water storage tank and inlet nozzle 24a, the fluid path through inverter housing 24, cooling water passage part 22, and the fluid path between discharge nozzle 22a and the water storage tank, which allows the cooling water to circulate through the system, ¶0039-¶0041), wherein the closed liquid cooling circuit is filled with liquid coolant (i.e. filled with water) being in indirect thermal contact (i.e. in indirect thermal contact via the liquid cooling circuit) with the stator (30, see Fig 1) and/or the power electronics (the inverter in inverter housing 24, see Fig 1), wherein the liquid coolant is circulated along the closed liquid cooling circuit (the water would inherently be circulated along the cooling circuit given how ¶0039-¶0041 describes the cooling water as being discharged/circulated/introduced). Lee US 2015/0381014 is silent regarding the limitations: a liquid coolant agitator, the liquid coolant agitator is arranged and configured to circulate the liquid coolant, wherein the liquid coolant agitator is mounted within the liquid cooling circuit to be rotatable about the rotor axis, and wherein the liquid coolant agitator is magnetically coupled to one or more of the movable parts. The prior art of Hong US 2007/0107880 which is directed to a cooled electric machine (title, abstract, ¶0016-¶0018) like Lee US 2015/0381014, is noted.
However, Hong US 2007/0107880 does disclose the limitations: a liquid coolant agitator (25, ¶0020-¶0022), the liquid coolant agitator 25 is arranged and configured to circulate the liquid coolant (Fig 2, ¶0020-¶0022), wherein the liquid coolant agitator is mounted within the liquid cooling circuit (i.e. mounted within a cooling liquid chamber of the liquid cooling circuit as understood from Fig 2, ¶0020-¶0022) to be rotatable about the rotor axis (as seen in Fig 2 the axis of the coolant agitator 25 is aligned with the axis of rotor 53, thus the coolant pump is rotatable about the rotor axis as claimed), and wherein the liquid coolant agitator 25 is magnetically coupled (i.e. via magnetic coupling made by elements 251,54, ¶0019-¶0020, ¶0022) to one or more of the movable parts (the magnetic coupling (251,54) couples the liquid coolant agitator 25 to the rotor 53, ¶0020, Fig 2; in the combination of prior art the agitator 25 would be coupled via the magnetic coupling to the drive shaft 1 of Lee).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the magnetic coupling (251,54) & the liquid coolant agitator 25 of Hong US 2007/0107880 into the drive shaft 1 & the closed liquid cooling circuit of Lee US 2015/0381014, in light of the teachings of Hong US 2007/0107880, in order to obtain a faster and more efficient cooling effect (Hong - ¶0008, ¶0024).
Regarding Claim 2: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does disclose the limitations: wherein the liquid coolant agitator is a hub-less propeller wheel (Hong – agitator 25 is a hubless agitator) ringing the drive shaft (in the combination since the diameter of the agitator 25 of Hong would be larger than the first axial drive shaft end of Lee, in a broad sense the agitator 25 of Hong would ring the drive shaft of Lee as claimed).
Regarding Claim 3: Lee US 2015/0381014 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stator 30 is enclosed in a stator housing 20, wherein parts of the stator housing form a thermally conductive wall between the stator and the closed liquid cooling circuit (since the wall of the stator housing 20 formed between element 22 and element 21 in Fig 1 transfers the heat from the stator to the water in passage 22, it is a thermally conductive wall as claimed, ¶0036-¶0039).
Regarding Claim 4: Lee US 2015/0381014 does disclose the limitations: further comprising a motor housing (20,21,23,24) enclosing the stator and the power electronics (Fig 1), wherein parts of the motor housing form a wall of the closed liquid cooling circuit (since the wall of the motor housing (20,21,23,24) formed between element 22 and element 21 in Fig 1 transfers the heat from the stator to the water in passage 22 of the closed liquid cooling circuit, the wall between elements 22 & 21 in Fig 1 is a wall of the closed liquid cooling circuit as claimed, ¶0036-¶0039), such that the liquid coolant flows between the stator and the motor housing (Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
693
1114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Lee US 2015/0381014 (Attached Figure A)
Regarding Claim 5: Lee US 2015/0381014 does disclose the limitations: wherein a section of the closed liquid cooling circuit (see Annotated Figure 1 of Lee US 2015/0381014 (Attached Figure A) above) extends between the stator and the power electronics (Attached Figure A), so that the liquid coolant (the cooling water) is in indirect thermal contact with both the stator and the power electronics (the cooling water is in indirect thermal contact with both the stator and the power electronics via the structure of motor housing (20,21,23,24) located between the cooling water and the stator/power electronics).
Regarding Claim 7: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, while Lee teaches in ¶0036-¶0037 that housing 20 is made of a metal material having high heat conductivity, Lee US 2015/0381014 does not disclose the limitations: a heat sink and a fan, wherein the heat sink is arranged in direct or indirect thermal contact with the liquid coolant, and wherein the fan is arranged to drive a cooling air flow along the heat sink.
However, Hong US 2007/0107880 does disclose the limitations: a heat sink (heat sink = heat sink 21 having conducting body 22 and cooling fins 23) and a fan (cooling fan 50, ¶0020), wherein the heat sink is arranged in direct thermal contact with the liquid coolant (since conducting body 22 forms the chamber 221 which is filled with cooling liquid, the articulated heat sink is arranged in direct thermal contact with the liquid as claimed), and wherein the fan is arranged to drive a cooling air flow along the heat sink (as described in ¶0022 the fan 50 creates an airflow along the fins 23 of the heat sink to provide cooling).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the heat sink (21,22,23) and fan 50 of Hong US 2007/0107880 into the motor housing (20,21,23,24) and drive shaft 1 of Lee US 2015/0381014, in light of the teachings of Hong US 2007/0107880, in order to provide more efficient cooling of the device (¶0022-¶0024).
Regarding Claim 8: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does disclose the limitations: wherein the fan is mechanically coupled to the drive shaft (in the combination of prior art the fan 50 of Hong would inherently be mechanically coupled to the drive shaft of Lee given the teachings of Hong have the fan 50 directly connected (i.e. mechanically coupled) to the rotating part of the motor).
Regarding Claim 10: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does disclose the limitations: wherein the heat sink comprises cooling fins (Hong – 23, ¶0018) extending parallel to the rotor axis (as understood from Figs 2-3 of Hong the fins 23 extend parallel to the rotating axis of the motor; additionally in the combination of prior art since the heat sink of Hong modifies the housing 20,21,23,24 of Lee which surrounds the rotor axis – it follows that in the combination the fins 23 would extend parallel to the rotor axis of Lee as claimed) and outside of a motor housing (Lee – 20,21,23,24; in the combination the fins 23 of Hong would be located on the outer surfaces of the motor housing (20,21,23,24) of Lee, given the teachings in Fig 3 of Hong) that encloses the stator and the power electronics (Lee - as seen in Figs 1-2, the structure of the motor housing encloses both the stator 30 and the inverter/power electronics (Attached Figure A) as claimed).
Additionally Regarding Claim 10: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein the cooling fins are laterally closed to define a section of a cooling air flow path towards or away from the fan”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the cooling fins of the heat sink such that the cooling fins are laterally closed to define a section of a cooling air flow path towards or away from the fan--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the cooling fins being laterally closed to define a section of a cooling air flow path towards or away from the fan versus the design taught by Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the cooling fins are laterally closed to define a section of a cooling air flow path towards or away from the fan and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0019 of the SPEC indicates that the fins are arranged so that they form a flowpath for the air moved by the fan (e.g. like the flow path that the cooling fins 23 of Hong would inherently provide the cooling air stream which is generated by the fan 50 of Hong given what is shown in Figs 2-3 of Hong). Thus, when the cooling fins are designed such that the cooling fins are laterally closed to define a section of a cooling air flow path towards or away from the fan the cooling fins 23 as taught by Hong US 2007/0107880 in the combination of Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of forming a flowpath for the air moved by the fan.
Regarding Claim 13: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stator comprises a first axial stator end (Lee – Attached Figure A) facing towards the power electronics (Lee – Attached Figure A) and a second axial stator end (Lee – Attached Figure A) facing away from the power electronics (Lee – Attached Figure A), wherein the liquid coolant agitator is located at the first axial stator end (in the combination of prior art since Hong teaches placing the magnetic coupling and the liquid coolant agitator at the distal end of the drive shaft so that the agitator is rotated in the coolant, in the combination element 251 of the magnetic coupling and the liquid coolant agitator 25 of Hong would be placed in the identified part of the cooling circuit in the inverter housing in Attached Figure A of Lee which is near the first axial end of the drive shaft).
Regarding Claim 14: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does disclose the limitations: wherein the drive shaft comprises a first axial drive shaft end (Lee – Attached Figure A) facing towards the power electronics (Lee – Attached Figure A) and a second axial drive shaft end (Lee – Attached Figure A) facing away from the power electronics (Lee – Attached Figure A), wherein the liquid coolant agitator rings the first axial drive shaft end (in the combination of prior art since Hong teaches placing the magnetic coupling and coolant agitator at the distal end of the drive shaft so that the agitator rotates in the fluid, in the combination the agitator would be placed at the distal end of the drive shaft located in the part of the cooling circuit in the inverter housing in Attached Figure A of Lee – which would result in the liquid coolant agitator 25 of Hong being at the first end of the drive shaft as claimed, additionally or in the alternate it would be obvious to place the agitator at the drive shaft end closest to the power electronics (e.g. the first axial drive shaft end) in order to provide more efficient cooling of the power electronics (Hong - ¶0008, ¶0024); also it is noted that in the combination since the diameter of the agitator 25 of Hong would be larger than the first axial drive shaft end of Lee, in a broad sense the agitator 25 of Hong would ring the first axial end of the drive shaft of Lee as claimed).
Regarding Claim 15: Lee US 2015/0381014 does disclose the limitations: wherein the first axial drive shaft end has a smaller diameter than the rest of the drive shaft (as understood from Attached Figure A the identified first axial end of the drive shaft has a smaller diameter than the rest of the drive shaft as claimed).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 2015/0381014 in view of Hong US 2007/0107880 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kao USPN 8629587.
Regarding Claim 6: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, Lee US 2015/0381014 discloses the limitations: wherein a section of the closed liquid cooling circuit extends around the stator (as seen in Fig 2 & Fig 1 – the section formed by water passage part 22 extends around stator 30 as claimed). Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does not disclose the limitations: wherein a section of the closed liquid cooling circuit extends along a helix around the stator. The prior art of Kao USPN 8629587 which is directed to a water cooling circuit for a motor (title, abstract) like Lee US 2015/0381014, is noted.
However Kao USPN 8629587 does disclose the limitations: wherein a section of the closed liquid cooling circuit (section formed by main flow passage 113 in Figs 1-3c, Column 4 Line 18-65) extends along a helix around the stator (as understood from Figs 1-3c – main flow passage 113 extends helically (i.e. along a helix) around stator 102).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the water passage part 22 of Lee US 2015/0381014 with the helical main flow passage 113 having a plurality of vortex-forming blocks 121 of Kao USPN 8629587 in order to enable increased heat transfer efficiency of the water cooling structure (Abstract).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 2015/0381014 in view Hong US 2007/0107880 as applied to claim 7 and 10 above, and further in view of Koyama US 2007/0273220.
Regarding Claim 9: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 7. Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 is silent regarding the arrangement of the stator being between the power electronics and fan as claimed.
However Koyama US 2007/0273220 does disclose the limitations: wherein the stator (e.g. stator 8,9 located in frame 3, ¶0040, ¶0061-¶0063) is arranged axially between the power electronics and the fan (power electronics = controller 13; the fan = fan 4; as seen in Fig 8 the stator is arranged axially between the power electronics and the fan as claimed).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan of Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 with the fan 4 arranged at the loaded side of the drive shaft as taught in Figure 8 of Koyama US 2007/0273220 in order to forcibly deliver the cooling airstream generated by the fan across surfaces of the motor and the power electronics, thereby providing cooling of the motor and the power electronics (¶0066).
Regarding Claim 11: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 10. Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the fan comprises a suction inlet eye in fluid connection with the cooling air flow path to suck in ambient air through the cooling air flow path along the cooling fins.
However Koyama US 2007/0273220 does disclose the limitations: wherein the fan (the fan = fan 4) comprises a suction inlet eye (inlet to fan 4 in Fig 8) in fluid connection with the cooling air flow path (i.e. the air flowpath seen Fig 8 / Fig 5) along the cooling fins (as seen Fig 8 / Fig 5). Applicant should note that the arrangement of the fan downstream of the cooling air flow path formed by the cooling fins will depend upon the desired heat transfer rate of the cooling fins and the volume of air moved by the fan which moves the cooling air and it is within the general skill level of a worker to determine what the arrangement of the fan and cooling air flowpath – should be through routine experimentation.
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan of Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 by arranging the fan downstream of the cooling air flow path formed by the cooling fins such that the fain is able to suck in ambient air through the cooling air flow path along the cooling fins with the desired heat transfer rate of the cooling fins and the volume of air moved by the fan to the arrangement of the cooling fins and fan in the combination of Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 and Koyama US 2007/0273220, since it would have involved only routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 12: Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does disclose the limitations: wherein the fan is arranged outside of the motor housing that encloses the stator and the power electronics (in the combination of prior art, since Lee teaches that the motor housing (20,21,23,24) encloses both the stator 30 and the power electronics, and Hong teaches that the fan delivers cooling air flow to fins of the heat sink located at the outer peripheral surface of the housing; in the combination of prior art of the fan of Hong would inherently be located outside of the motor housing of Lee in order to deliver the airflow to the heat sink fins located at the outer peripheral surface of the housing of Lee). Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 does not disclose the limitations: the fan is a radial fan.
However Koyama US 2007/0273220 does disclose the limitations: the fan is a radial fan (as seen in Fig 8, ¶0040, ¶0061-¶0065 Koyama teaches that the fan 4 radially delivers the air flow (i.e. the fan is a radial fan)).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan of Lee US 2015/0381014 as modified by Hong US 2007/0107880 with the fan 4 arranged at the loaded side of the drive shaft as taught in Figure 8 of Koyama US 2007/0273220 in order to forcibly deliver the cooling airstream generated by the fan across surfaces of the motor and the power electronics, thereby providing cooling of the motor and the power electronics (¶0066).
Claim(s) 16 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 2015/0381014 in view of Hong US 2007/0107880 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radermacher USPN 6293769.
Regarding Claim 16: Radermacher discloses a dry runner centrifugal pump comprising a pump housing (1, 7) and an integrated motor drive (2, 3, 4) coupled to the pump housing (see the figure), wherein the pump housing encloses an impeller (unnumbered but shown in the figure), wherein the drive shaft of the integrated electric motor drive is mechanically coupled to the impeller (col. 1, lines 53-55) for pumping fluid from a pump housing inlet (the figure: top downward arrow) towards a pump housing outlet 8. Rader marcher does not disclose an integrated electric motor drive as claimed in claim 1. However, Lee as modified by Hong teaches such an electric motor as shown above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have replaced the integrated electric motor of Radermacher with the electric motor of Lee/Hong, in order to provide an integrated electric motor with better cooling efficiency.
Regarding Claim 18: Radermacher USPN 6293769 does disclose the limitations: further comprising a shaft seal element (19, Column 2 Line 21-34) for sealing the pump housing (Column 2 Line 21-34) and allowing mechanical coupling between the impeller and the drive shaft (as seen in the Figure).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radermacher USPN 6293769 in view of Lee US 2015/0381014 & Hong US 2007/0107880 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sorensen US 2016/0305445 and Koyama US 2007/0273220.
Regarding Claim 17: Radermacher USPN 6293769 as modified by Lee US 2015/0381014 and Hong US 2007/0107880 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 16.
Radermacher USPN 6293769 as modified by Lee US 2015/0381014 and Hong US 2007/0107880 does not disclose a motor stool mechanically connecting a motor housing to the pump housing. However, it is known to use a motor stool to connect a motor housing to a pump housing as attested by Sorensen US 2016/0305445 (Sorensen teaches: a pump housing = 2,14, ¶0038-¶0040 that encloses impeller 10, ¶0039, Fig 2; an electric motor = 20, Fig 11, ¶0041-¶0042, where the drive shaft (e.g. motor shaft ¶0041) is mechanically coupled to the impeller ¶0041; and a motor stool (motor stool = 24 and section 18 in Fig 11, ¶0041) mechanically connecting a motor housing (motor housing = housing structure generally indicated by element 20 in Fig 11) of the electric motor to the pump housing (as understood from Fig 11)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a motor stool in the dry runner centrifugal pump of Radermacher USPN 6293769 as modified by Lee US 2015/0381014 and Hong US 2007/0107880, in light of the teachings of Sorensen, as is known in the art.
Additionally, regarding the recitation of the electric motor having a fan circumferentially circumscribed by the motor stool, it is known to provide a fan at the loaded end of an integrated electric motor as attested by Koyama US 2007/0273220 (Koyama teaches: the fan is located at the loaded end (as seen in Fig 8, ¶0037, ¶0061-¶0066 Koyama teaches that the fan 4 is located at the loaded side of the motor)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a fan as taught by Koyama US 2007/0273220 to the dry runner centrifugal pump of Radermacher USPN 6293769 as modified by Lee US 2015/0381014, Hong US 2007/0107880, and Sorensen US 2016/0305445 in order to further enhance the cooling effect. Additionally applicant should not that it is obvious that such a fan would be circumferenced by the motor stool in order to avoid the motor stool interfering with the cooling performed by the fan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746