DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 04/13/2026 following the Non-Final Rejection of 01/12/2026. Claims 1, 6 and 10 were amended; claims 3-4 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 5-12 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of 01/12/2026 as previously presented have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 over Liedel (US 2012/0128492) in view of Huang (US 7015606) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art still reads onto the invention as claimed and Applicant's arguments were not found persuasive by Examiner.
Applicant's point on page 4 of Remarks that “while the cited references may include, at a very general level, that something exists between the fan hub and the rotor, they do not disclose or suggest the specific structural feature of placing the damping member in a non-hole region that avoids bolt holes and cooling holes on both the hub side and the rotor side. The positioning of the damping member in a region without bolt holes and cooling holes is not merely a design choice, but is instead an intentional structural design for simultaneously preserving the fastening function and the cooling function while also achieving additional support and noise/vibration reduction. See paragraphs [11], [23], [43], [47], [48], [55], and [56] of the Application as filed” was not found persuasive by Examiner. Note: this point was similar mentioned on page 5 of Remarks.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the specific structural feature of placing the damping member in a non-hole region that avoids bolt holes and cooling holes on both the hub side and the rotor side”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims as presented only require that “the damping member is positioned in a portion where the first hole, the second bolt hole, the first cooling hole, and the second cooling hole are not formed”. It can still be formed were other cooling holes or bolt holes are formed.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art structure does not explicitly state that it is a damping member, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. If the prior art possess all the required structure to perform the intended function, it meets the claim.
This argument/line of reasoning was similarly argued by Applicant on page 5 of Remarks and is similarly not found persuasive for the detailed listed above.
Applicant's point on pages 6-7 of Remarks that “Current claim 1 recites a position of the damping member that is not taught or suggested by the cited references, and the position provides benefits over any asserted damping member of the cited references”, “the damping member [of the instant invention] provides additional support and vibration damping between the fan hub and the rotor without interfering with the fastening structure or the cooling structure” and that “Liedel's fixed stop is merely a member interposed at a particular fastening region or gap-assisting region, and is not arranged as claimed or according to the same positional logic. In other words, while the cited references may include, at a very general level, that something exists between the fan hub and the rotor, they do not disclose or suggest the specific structural feature of placing the damping member in a non-hole region that avoids bolt holes and cooling holes on both the hub side and the rotor side” was not found persuasive by the Examiner.
The combination of Liedel (US 2012/0128492) in view of Huang (US 7015606) comprises all the aspects of claim 1. See rejection below for details.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the damping member [of the instant invention] provides additional support and vibration damping between the fan hub and the rotor without interfering with the fastening structure or the cooling structure” and “placing the damping member in a non-hole region that avoids bolt holes and cooling holes on both the hub side and the rotor side”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims as presented only require that “the damping member is positioned in a portion where the first hole, the second bolt hole, the first cooling hole, and the second cooling hole are not formed”. It can still be formed were other cooling holes or bolt holes are formed.
Applicant's point on page 7 of Remarks that “the positioning of the damping member in a region without bolt holes and cooling holes is not merely a design choice, but is instead an intentional structural design for simultaneously preserving the fastening function and the cooling function while also achieving additional support and noise/vibration reduction” is not found persuasive by Examiner.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the positioning of the damping member in a region without bolt holes and cooling holes and cooling holes”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims as presented only require that “the damping member is positioned in a portion where the first hole, the second bolt hole, the first cooling hole, and the second cooling hole are not formed”. It can still be formed were other cooling holes or bolt holes are formed.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5, the limitation “the fan of claim 3” renders the claim indefinite since claim 3 is now cancelled. Thus, it is unclear what the metes and bounds for claim 5 are meant to be. For examination purposes, this claim is being interpreted to depend upon claim 1.
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, 5-6 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0128492, herein referenced as Liedel, in view of US 7015606, herein referenced as Huang.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Figure 1 – annotated version of fig. 17 of Liedel
PNG
media_image2.png
283
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 18 of Liedel
Regarding Claim 1, Liedel discloses a fan (see fig. 17 which possess the embodiment of the fixed stops being plastically or elastically deformable as disclosed in pr. 20) comprising:
a fan hub (hub 11 fig. 17) having an inner surface (see inner surface of hub 11 fig. 17) and an outer periphery (see outer periphery at axial portion 13 in fig. 17), and being open on one side (shown to be open on its lower side in fig. 17);
a blade (see blades 14 formed on axial portion of hub 11 in fig. 15) formed on the outer periphery of the fan hub (see axial portion 13 of hub 11 in fig. 17);
a rotor (motor rotor 22 fig. 17) having an outer surface (see outer/exterior facing surface of rotor 22 fig. 17), being inserted and coupled to the fan hub (rotor 22 shown to be inserted and coupled to hub 11 in fig. 17); and
a damping member (see fixed stop 323 on right side in fig. 17; alternatively, the damping member can encompass multiple fixed stops 323, such as the left and right one, in fig. 17; these being formed as plastically or elastically deformable members as disclosed in pr. 20 which states that “It is also possible for the fixed stop 323 to be designed such that it can be plastically or elastically deformed by the fastening 15 of the fan 10; the deformable elements 321 may then if appropriate be omitted”, basically where the fixed stops 323 in fig. 17 function as the deformable elements 321 in fig. 18) disposed between the inner surface of the fan hub (see inner surface of hub 11 fig. 17) and the outer surface of the rotor (see outer surface of rotor 22 fig. 17), contacting both the fan hub and the rotor (fixed stop 323 shown to be contacting both the fan hub 11 and rotor 22 in fig. 17),
wherein the damping member (at least 323 on the right in fig. 17) is formed in the shape of a protrusion extending from the inner surface of the fan hub (under a broadest reasonable interpretation, right fixed stop 323 is shown to be formed in a shape of: a protrusion extending from the inner surface of the hub 11 to the rotor 22 in fig. 17 due to extending/protruding between these components; pr. 20 states that “it is also possible for the fixed stop 323 to be designed such that it can be plastically or elastically deformed by the fastening 15 of the fan 10; the deformable elements 321 may then if appropriate be omitted”) toward the rotor, contacting the rotor (right 323 shown to contact rotor 22 in fig. 17), and
wherein the damping member (fixed stop 323 on the right in fig. 17) is integrally formed with the fan hub (right fixed stop 323 is shown to be integrally formed with the fan hub 11 in fig. 17),
wherein the fan hub (11 fig. 17) comprises a bottom wall (wall of radial portion 12 fig. 17) and a side wall (side wall of axial portion 13 fig. 17) defining a space into which the rotor is inserted (see space of hub 11 occupied by rotor 22 in fig. 17),
wherein the rotor (22 fig. 17; see rotor’s side wall and bottom wall in Examiner Figure 1) comprising a bottom wall (see radial wall of rotor 22, shown to face radial wall 12 in fig. 17) facing the bottom wall of the fan hub (radial portion 12 of hub 11 fig. 17) and a side wall (see axial wall of rotor 22, shown to face axial portion 13 of hub 11 in fig. 17) facing the side wall of the fan hub (axial portion 13 of hub 11 fig. 17),
wherein the damping member (right 323 fig. 17) is positioned between the bottom wall of the fan hub and the bottom wall of the rotor (323 on the right is shown to be provided between the radial wall 12 of hub 11 and the radial wall of rotor 22 in fig. 17), and
wherein the fan hub comprises a first bolt hole (see bolt hole in hub 11 for the fastening 15 on the left in fig. 17; 1st bolt hole in Examiner Figure 1), the rotor comprises a second bolt hole (see bolt hole in rotor 22 for the fastening 15 on the left in fig. 17; 2nd bolt hole in Examiner Figure 1) formed in the bottom wall thereof (shown in Examiner Figure 1).
However, Liedel fails to anticipate wherein the fan hub comprises a first cooling hole formed to penetrate the inner surface thereof, and wherein the damping member is formed at a portion where the first cooling hole is not formed,
wherein the fan hub comprises the first cooling hole is formed in the bottom wall thereof,
the rotor comprises a second cooling hole formed in the bottom wall thereof, and the damping member is positioned in a portion where the first bolt, the second bolt hole, the first cooling hole, and the second cooling hole are not formed.
Liedel and Huang are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of fans/blowers.
PNG
media_image3.png
440
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2A of Huang
Huang teaches wherein the fan hub (13 fig. 2A) comprises a first cooling hole (aperture 18 of fan hub 13 fig. 2A) formed to penetrate the inner surface thereof (aperture 18 shown to penetrate bottom wall of hub 13 in fig. 2A), wherein the fan hub (hub 13 fig. 2A) comprises the first cooling hole is formed in the bottom wall thereof (aperture 18 shown to penetrate bottom wall of hub 13 in fig. 2A), the rotor (see rotor case 14 in fig. 2A) comprises a second cooling hole (see opening 17 and corresponding projection 16 in fig. 2A) formed in the bottom wall thereof (opening 17 shown to penetrate the bottom wall of rotor case 14 in fig. 2A). Huang further teaches that “the projection 16 and the corresponding opening 17 thereof and the aperture 18 are rotated together with the rotation of the rotor 11, thereby heat generated from the stator 31 is dissipated” in col. 3 lines 14-19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Liedel to have the aperture 18, opening 17 and projection 16 disclosed by Huang, so as to obtain the benefit of ‘dissipating heat generated from the stator, as taught by Huang.
In this combination of Liedel modified by the teachings of Huang, it would be obvious that the damping member (see right 323 in fig. 17 of Liedel) be positioned in a portion wherein the first cooling hole (or potentially other cooling holes) is not formed so that the operation of the right 323 of Liedel and the operation of the cooling holes of Huang (as used to modify Liedel) are not affected by each other. Further, in this modification, it would be obvious that the damping member (see right 323 in fig. 17 of Liedel) is positioned in a portion where the first bolt, the second bolt hole (damping element 321 on the right in fig. 17 of Liedel is shown to be positioned in a portion where the 1st hole and the 2nd hole are not formed in Examiner Figure 1), the first cooling hole, and the second cooling hole are not formed (the first cooling hole and the second cooling hole of Huang, as used to modify Liedel above, would be positioned in a different portion from the damping element in Examiner Figure 1 for the modification of Liedel in view of Huang so as main operation/function of the cooling holes and/or the damping member).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Liedel and Huang comprises the fan of claim 3 (this is being interpreted as dependent upon claim 1, see rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) for details), wherein the damping member (fixed stop 323 fig. 17 of Liedel formed as deformable) has a height equal to a gap between the bottom wall of the fan hub and the bottom wall of the rotor (the fixed stop 323 are shown to have a height that is equal to the gap between the bottom walls of the fan hub 11 and the rotor 22 in fig. 17 of Liedel).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Liedel and Huang comprises the fan of claim 1, wherein the damping member (see damping element 323 in fig. 17 of Liedel), based on the rotor being divided into at least two equal segments in an axial direction of the rotor (see motor rotor 22 in fig. 17 of Liedel which can be divided into two equal axial segments with an upper axial half and a lower axial half), is positioned at the segment (an upper axial half segment of the motor rotor 22 in fig. 17 of Liedel, shown to have the damping member/element positioned at the upper axial half of the motor rotor 22 in fig. 17 of Liedel) corresponding to a part of the rotor side wall closest to the bottom wall of the fan hub among the at least two segments (an upper axial half segment of the motor rotor 22 would correspond with an a part of the rotor side wall closest to the bottom wall of the fan hub 11 since the upper axial half of the motor rotor 22 is closest to the bottom wall of the hub 11 as shown in fig. 17 of Liedel).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Liedel and Huang comprises the fan of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the damping member is formed in one or more protrusions.
It has been held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. MPEP 2144.04 §VI: B “Duplication of Parts” citing In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thus, it would have been similarly obvious to have modified the number of fastening screws 15 (and associated bolt holes and stops 323) in figs. 17-18 of Liedel which fasten it to fan hub 11 to the motor rotor 22, in the combination of Liedel and Huang, by duplication such that there are at least three separate fastening screws 15 (and associated components) which are circumferentially arranged around the rotation axis. The duplication of parts would not be considered a new and unexpected result as it merely increases the number of fastening screws and it is also known in the art to use three or more fastening screws to couple a fan hub to a motor rotor. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. “Duplication of Parts” for further details.
In the modification above, each of the fastening screws 15, as shown in fig. 17 of Liedel, would have their own associated bolts holes and stop 323; thus, a damping member can be defined as two separate protruding stops 323 in fig. 17 of Liedel with the one remaining non-associated fastening screws 15 being provided in the first bolt hole of the hub 11 and the second bolt hole of the rotor 22 in fig. 17 of Liedel. This means that the two separate protruding stops above would not be positioned where this first bolt hole and this second bolt hole are formed.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Liedel and Huang as further modified above comprises the fan of claim 11, wherein the damping member is formed in at least two protrusions with a predetermined spacing therebetween (the at least three fastening screws 15 in the combination of Liedel and Huang as further modified above would possess two stops 323 (see fig. 17 of Liedel) and two of the screws 15 with the remaining screw 15 being provided at the first bore hole and the second bore hole and unassociated with the two stops 323 above; these two separate protruding stops 323 would further have a predetermined spacing therebetween in the fan assembly).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 7 (and dependent claims 8-10), no prior art was found which anticipated or rendered obvious the invention as claimed. Particularly, “wherein the fan hub comprises a plurality of ribs formed radially on the bottom wall and the side wall thereof, the damping member is positioned at an inner end of at least one of the plurality of ribs, contacting both the at least one of the plurality of ribs and the side wall of the rotor” in context of all preceding limitations. The closest reference to this aspect was Takeshita (US 8757978) which disclosed of adhesive being applied to an inner end of a rib of a fan hub to couple it to a rotor, this adhesive 241, in the final product, possessing the required structure to function as a damping member due to it contacting both the fan hub and the rotor. However, this reference fails to disclosed the other limitations required by this claim, particularly the required aspects of the fan hub comprising a first bolt hole and a first cooling hole, and the rotor comprising a second bolt hole and a second cooling hole. It was determined to be non-obvious to modify Takeshita to possess these missing aspect due to its presented structure. Particularly the radial thinness of the bottom wall of the rotor holder as well as the position of field magnet 32 in fig. 3 of Takeshita. It is questionable whether the bolt hole and cooling hole could be added to the rotor holder without compromising the structural integrity of the rotor holder as well as being able to obtain the related benefits that these modification should bring because of the radial thinness of the bottom wall of the rotor holder 31 and the position of the magnet 32 in fig. 3 of Takeshita. Additionally, further modifying the combination of Liedel and Huang with teaching from Takeshita was considered but was determined to be a non-obvious modification as the structure and associated teachings of Takeshita would likely interfere with the adjustment device of Liedel. For the reasons listed above, claim 7 and its dependents are deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights