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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-20 remain pending. Claims 5, 8, 11, and 15 have been cancelled. New claims 21-23 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating modified grounds of rejection. Please see modified grounds of rejection below.
The Applicant argues the claims are allowable since “a fan having a counterweight does not teach or suggest a sleeve hub comprising a cylindrical surface plate having a counterweight”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Liepert teaches a counterweight attached to a hub (of a fan) and locating the counterweight on the cylindrical surface plate would be obvious to try as there are only two structures on which to locate the counter weight (i.e. the hub shaft and the cylindrical surface plate), see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
For the reasons above the rejections are hereby maintained.
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) 1-2 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature “Browning Split Taper Bushing” to RegalRexnord in view of US 5616015 to Liepert.
Regarding claim 1:
RegalRexnord discloses a dual sleeve hub, the dual sleeve hub comprising:
a cylindrical surface plate (see annotated figure below) having a central axis (center axis of cylindrical portion) and a cylindrical thickness spacing first and second sides (thickness of cylindrical surface plate);
a central aperture passing from said first side to said second side about said central axis (hole in central region of cylindrical surface plate); and
a hub shaft (see annotated figure below) projecting from one of said first and second sides, said hub shaft having first and second sleeves sharing a common key slot (see annotated figure below).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “for coupling a motor to a compressor during operation” is a functional limitation. As the dual sleeve hub of the prior art discloses all structural limitations of the claim it can perform the claimed function.
The Examiner further notes that when using the internet archive to show the webpage as it was on May 26, 2022 the archive failed to load the image of the bushing; for clarity of the record and for the purpose of compact prosecution, two views from the modern version of the page were appended to the end of the NPL document in order to provide a picture of the bushing as shown in the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RegalRexnord does not disclose wherein said keyed hub sleeve further comprises a counterweight providing rotational balance to the system during operation.
Liepert teaches a hub (fan 60, Fig 1) comprising a counterweight (64, Fig 1) for balancing a pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyed hub as disclosed by RegalRexnord with the above aforementioned counterweight as taught by Liepert for the purpose of balancing the pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
A need for balancing a system via a hub comprising a counterweight is well known in the art as evidenced by Liepert and in applying the counterweight of Liepert to the keyed hub sleeve disclosed by RegalRexnord has only two possible locations to locate said counterweight, namely the hub shaft and the cylindrical surface plate. 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 located the counterweight of the proposed combination on the cylindrical surface plate as obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 2:
RegalRexnord as modified by Liepert teaches the dual sleeve hub of claim 1.
RegalRexnord further discloses a plurality of tapped openings (see annotated figure below).
The limitation “for securing a fan between a motor and compressor during operation” is a functional limitation. As the dual sleeve hub of the prior art discloses all structural limitations of the claim it can perform the claimed function.
PNG
media_image2.png
568
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21:
RegalRexnord as modified by Liepert teaches the dual sleeve hub of claim 1.
RegalRexnord as modified by Liepert further teaches wherein said counterweight is cast into a surface of said cylindrical surface plate (RegalRexnord: hub is “ductile iron” i.e. formed by casting).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240191707 to O’Konek in view of Non-Patent Literature “Browning Split Taper Bushing” to RegalRexnord as evidenced by US 2321438 to Duke in further view of US 5616015 to Liepert.
Regarding claim 3:
O’Konek discloses a system for coupling a motor to a compressor during operation (Pars 0025-0026), the system comprising:
a pump (compressor 30, Fig 6) having a male pump shaft (drive shaft 32, Fig 6), the pump for compressing air during rotational operation (Par 0002);
a motor (motor 40, Fig 6) having a hollow motor shaft (output shaft 42, Fig 6, Par 0026) for rotating said pump during rotational operation (Par 0004); and
wherein the male motor shaft and hollow motor shaft are coupled using a keyed coupling (Par 0026).
O’Konek does not disclose:
wherein the keyed coupling is a dual sleeve hub for coupling said motor to said pump during operation,
the dual sleeve hub comprising:
a cast cylindrical surface plate having a central axis and a cylindrical thickness spacing first and second sides;
a central aperture passing from said first side to said second side about said central axis; and
a hub shaft projecting from one of said first and second sides,
said hub shaft having first and second sleeves sharing a common key slot such that said first sleeve is received by said hollow motor shaft during assembly for rotational coupling and said second sleeve receives said male pump shaft during assembly for rotational coupling;
wherein said key slot is axially aligned with a blind key slot in said male pump shaft and said hollow motor shaft such that a key when positioned therein concomitantly rotates said dual sleeve hub and pump with the rotation of said motor during operation.
RegalRexnord discloses a dual sleeve hub, the dual sleeve hub comprising:
a cast (“ductile iron” i.e. cast iron) cylindrical surface plate (see annotated figure below) having a central axis (center axis of cylindrical portion) and a cylindrical thickness spacing first and second sides (thickness of cylindrical surface plate);
a central aperture passing from said first side to said second side about said central axis (hole in central region of cylindrical surface plate); and
a hub shaft (see annotated figure below) projecting from one of said first and second sides,
said hub shaft having first and second sleeves sharing a common key slot (see annotated figure below) such that said first sleeve is received by said hollow motor shaft during assembly for rotational coupling and said second sleeve receives said male pump shaft during assembly for rotational coupling (must be so in order to couple a male pump shaft and a hollow motor shaft);
wherein said key slot is axially aligned with a blind key slot in said male pump shaft and said hollow motor shaft such that a key when positioned therein concomitantly rotates said dual sleeve hub and pump with the rotation of said motor during operation (as shown in the annotated figure below, when installed the key would project outwardly from the first sleeve and inward from the second sleeve; when coupled, the hollow motor shaft and male pump shaft must have respective blind key slots).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyed coupling as disclosed by O’Konek to be a dual sleeve hub as taught by RegalRexnord for the purpose allowing for the use of a relatively thin walled hub shaft as evidenced by Duke (Col 2 Lns 18-25; slot 13 of sleeve 12, keyway 20 of hub 19, and keyway 11 of shaft 10 are aligned such that they are coupled using only a single key 21; Figs 2-3).
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord does not teach wherein said cylindrical surface plate further comprises a counterweight providing rotational balance to the system during operation.
Liepert teaches a hub (fan 60, Fig 1) comprising a counterweight (64, Fig 1) for balancing a pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyed hub as taught by the combined teachings of O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord with the above aforementioned counterweight as taught by Liepert for the purpose of balancing the pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
A need for balancing a system via a hub comprising a counterweight is well known in the art as evidenced by Liepert and in applying the counterweight of Liepert to the keyed hub sleeve disclosed by RegalRexnord has only two possible locations to locate said counterweight, namely the hub shaft and the cylindrical surface plate. 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 located the counterweight of the proposed combination on the cylindrical surface plate as obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 4.
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert teaches the system of claim 3.
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert further teaches wherein said cylindrical surface plate further comprises a plurality of tapped openings (RegalRexnord: see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
568
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The limitation “for securing a fan between a motor and compressor during operation” is a functional limitation. As the dual sleeve hub of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim it can perform the claimed function.
Regarding claim 22:
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert teaches the system of claim 3.
RegalRexnord as modified by Liepert further teaches wherein said counterweight is cast into a surface of said cylindrical surface plate (RegalRexnord: hub is “ductile iron” i.e. formed by casting).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240191707 to O’Konek in view of Non-Patent Literature “Browning Split Taper Bushing” to RegalRexnord as evidenced by US 2321438 to Duke in further view of US 5616015 to Liepert in even further view of US 7329108 to Tsuchiya.
Regarding claim 6:
O’Konek discloses a system for coupling an arrangement between a motor to a compressor pump during operation, the system comprising:
a pump (compressor 30, Fig 6) having a male pump shaft (drive shaft 32, Fig 6), the pump for compressing air during rotational operation (Par 0002);
a motor (motor 40, Fig 6) having a hollow motor shaft (output shaft 42, Fig 6, Par 0026) for rotating said pump during rotational operation (Par 0004); and
wherein the male motor shaft and hollow motor shaft are coupled using a keyed coupling (Par 0026).
O’Konek does not disclose:
wherein the keyed coupling is a dual sleeve hub,
the dual sleeve hub comprising:
a cast cylindrical surface plate having a central axis and a cylindrical thickness spacing first and second sides;
wherein said cast cylindrical surface plate further comprises a counterweight providing rotational balance to the system during operation;
a central aperture passing from said first side to said second side about said central axis; and
a hub shaft projecting from one of said first and second sides,
said hub shaft having first and second sleeves sharing a common key slot such that said first sleeve is received by said hollow motor shaft during assembly for rotational coupling and said second sleeve receives said male pump shaft during assembly for rotational coupling;
wherein said key slot is axially aligned with a blind key slot in said male pump shaft and said hollow motor shaft such that a key when positioned therein concomitantly rotates said dual sleeve hub and pump with the rotation of said motor during operation;
a cooling fan secured to said dual sleeve hub for cooling said motor and compressor during operation; and
a flow passage surface positioned between said motor and said fan, said flow passage surface having a plurality of openings for cooling said motor and pump during operation.
RegalRexnord discloses a dual sleeve hub, the dual sleeve hub comprising:
a cast (“ductile iron” i.e. cast iron) cylindrical surface plate (see annotated figure below) having a central axis (center axis of cylindrical portion) and a cylindrical thickness spacing first and second sides (thickness of cylindrical surface plate);
a central aperture passing from said first side to said second side about said central axis (hole in central region of cylindrical surface plate); and
a hub shaft (see annotated figure below) projecting from one of said first and second sides,
said hub shaft having first and second sleeves sharing a common key slot (see annotated figure below) such that said first sleeve is received by said hollow motor shaft during assembly for rotational coupling and said second sleeve receives said male pump shaft during assembly for rotational coupling (must be so in order to couple a male pump shaft and a hollow motor shaft);
wherein said key slot is axially aligned with a blind key slot in said male pump shaft and said hollow motor shaft such that a key when positioned therein concomitantly rotates said dual sleeve hub and pump with the rotation of said motor during operation (as shown in the annotated figure below, when installed the key would project outwardly from the first sleeve and inward from the second sleeve; when coupled, the hollow motor shaft and male pump shaft must have respective blind key slots).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyed coupling as disclosed by O’Konek to be a dual sleeve hub as taught by RegalRexnord for the purpose allowing for the use of a relatively thin walled hub shaft as evidenced by Duke (Col 2 Lns 18-25; slot 13 of sleeve 12, keyway 20 of hub 19, and keyway 11 of shaft 10 are aligned such that they are coupled using only a single key 21; Figs 2-3).
Liepert teaches a hub (fan 60, Fig 1) comprising a counterweight (64, Fig 1) for balancing a pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyed hub as taught by the combined teachings of O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord with the above aforementioned counterweight as taught by Liepert for the purpose of balancing the pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
A need for balancing a system via a hub comprising a counterweight is well known in the art as evidenced by Liepert and in applying the counterweight of Liepert to the keyed hub sleeve disclosed by RegalRexnord has only two possible locations to locate said counterweight, namely the hub shaft and the cylindrical surface plate. 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 located the counterweight of the proposed combination on the cylindrical surface plate as obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Tsuchiya is also in the field of motor and pump assemblies (see abstract) and teaches:
A motor (motor 11, Figs 4-7) coupled to a compressor (compression chamber 2 with scrolls 5/6, Figs 4-7) by a hub (unlabeled Oldham coupling between unlabeled motor shaft and driving shaft 9, Figs 4-7),
a cooling fan (centrifugal fan 30, Fig 4; cooling fan 15, Figs 5-6; blowing fan 39, Fig 7) secured to said hub (Figs 4-7) for cooling said motor and compressor during operation (arrows indicated cooling air flow, Figs 4-7); and
a flow passage surface (rear wall 1a, Figs 4/6-7; front wall 33, Fig 5) positioned between said motor and said fan (Figs 4-7), said flow passage surface having a plurality of openings (discharge holes 12, Figs 4/6-7; communicating hole 35, Fig 5; communicating hole 37, Fig 6) for cooling said motor and pump during operation (arrows indicating airflow throughout both the motor and the pump section, Figs 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dual sleeve hub as taught by O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert to have a fan secured thereon as taught by Tsuchiya for the purpose of cooling the pump and the motor (see abstract).
Regarding claim 7:
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Tsuchiya teaches system of claim 6.
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Tsuchiya further teaches wherein said cast cylindrical surface plate further comprises a plurality of tapped openings for securing said fan between said motor and pump during operation (RegalRexnord: see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
568
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23:
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Tsuchiya teaches the system of claim 6.
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Tsuchiya further teaches wherein said counterweight is cast into a surface of said cylindrical surface plate (RegalRexnord: hub is “ductile iron” i.e. formed by casting).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240191707 to O’Konek in view of Non-Patent Literature “Browning Split Taper Bushing” to RegalRexnord as evidenced by US 2321438 to Duke in further view of US 5616015 to Liepert in even further view of US 7121816 to Matsushima.
Regarding claim 9:
O’Konek discloses a motor assembly comprising:
a motor housing (housing 44, Fig 5) for receiving a motor (internal structures of motor 40, Figs 5-6),
a hollow motor shaft (drive shaft 32, Fig 6) comprising a cavity for receiving a pump shaft (Par 0026);
a pump shaft (drive shaft 32, Fig 6) extending from a pump (compressor 30, Fig 6);
wherein the male pump shaft and the hollow motor shaft are coupled using a keyed coupling (Par 0026).
O’Konek does not disclose:
wherein the keyed coupling is a keyed hub sleeve dimensioned and configured to house the pump shaft,
wherein said keyed hub sleeve further comprises a counterweight providing rotational balance between the pump and motor during operation,
wherein the keyed hub sleeve coupled to the pump shaft together are couplable to and received by the hollow motor shaft, and
RegalRexnord teaches a keyed hub sleeve (split taper bushing, see annotated figure bellow) dimensioned and configured to house a shaft (internal surface of hub shaft and key which receives a keyed shaft, see annotated figure below), wherein the keyed hub sleeve coupled to the shaft together are couplable to and received by a hollow shaft (external surface of hub shaft and key which is received in a keyed hollow shaft, see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyed coupling as disclosed by O’Konek to be a keyed hub sleeve as taught by RegalRexnord for the purpose allowing for the use of a relatively thin walled hub sleeve as evidenced by Duke (Col 2 Lns 18-25; slot 13 of sleeve 12, keyway 20 of hub 19, and keyway 11 of shaft 10 are aligned such that they are coupled using only a single key 21; Figs 2-3).
Liepert teaches a hub (fan 60, Fig 1) comprising a counterweight (64, Fig 1) for balancing a pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyed hub as taught by the combined teachings of O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord with the above aforementioned counterweight as taught by Liepert for the purpose of balancing the pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
A need for balancing a system via a hub comprising a counterweight is well known in the art as evidenced by Liepert and in applying the counterweight of Liepert to the keyed hub sleeve disclosed by RegalRexnord has only two possible locations to locate said counterweight, namely the hub shaft and the cylindrical surface plate. 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 located the counterweight of the proposed combination on the cylindrical surface plate as obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert does not teach:
a rotational cooling unit shroud dimensioned and configured to receive a rotational cooling unit,
wherein the rotational cooling unit shroud and rotational cooling unit comprise a central opening for receiving a pump shaft; and
wherein the keyed hub sleeve fastens the rotational cooling unit to the pump shaft, allowing the rotation of a pump cooling fan to be fixed to the pump shaft rotation when coupled with the motor shaft, and allowing the rotational cooling unit to draw heat from the motor housing.
Matsushima teaches:
a rotational cooling unit shroud (walls of pump and motor housing defining cavity into which cooling fan 15 is located, Figs 1-2) and rotational cooling unit (cooling fan 15 and adjacent unlabeled structures coupling shaft of motor 17 to driving shaft 8, Figs 1-2),
wherein the rotational cooling unit shroud and rotational cooling unit comprise a central opening (internal bores of wall through which driving shaft 8 passes through and of the coupling structures into which driving shaft 8 is received, Figs 1-2) for receiving a pump shaft (driving shaft 8, Figs 1-2); and
wherein a keyed hub sleeve (see annotated Figure 2 below) fastens the rotational cooling unit to the pump shaft (Figs 1-2), allowing the rotation of a pump cooling fan (cooling fan 15, Figs 1-2) to be fixed to the pump shaft rotation when coupled with the motor shaft (Figs 1-2), and allowing the rotational cooling unit to draw heat from a motor housing (fan driven air in cavity must allow at least some heat transfer between housing of motor 17 and air within the cavity, Figs 1-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert with the above aforementioned rotational cooling unit shroud and rotational cooling unit as taught by Matsushima for the purpose of providing cooling air flow (Col 3 Lns 11-14).
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima does not explicitly teach the motor housing comprising cooling fins for the release of heat from the motor.
Applicant has disclosed no new and unexpected result from having the motor housing comprise cooling fins and Matsushima teaches the use of cooling fins (3d/4d, Fig 1). Adding more cooling fins to another structural feature through mere duplication of parts supports a prima facie finding of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the motor housing as taught by O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima to have cooling fins through mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 10:
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima teaches the system of claim 9.
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima further teaches wherein said keyed hub sleeve further comprises a plurality of tapped openings for securing said pump cooling fan between the motor and pump during operation (RegalRexnord: see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
568
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Konek in view of Non-Patent Literature “Browning Split Taper Bushing” to RegalRexnord as evidenced by US 2321438 to Duke in further view of US 5616015 to Liepert in even further view of US 7121816 to Matsushima as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 7329108 to Tsuchiya.
Regarding claim 12:
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima teaches the system of claim 9.
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima does not teach a tunnel having a first end connected to and extending about the length of said motor for directing air being drawn by said cooling fan through an opening in said tunnel located at a second end of said tunnel.
Tsuchiya is also in the field of motor and pump assemblies (see abstract) and teaches a tunnel (space between external tube 32 and motor 11, Figs 4/7) having a first end (end proximate rear end 32b, Figs 4/7) connected to and extending about the length of a motor (motor 11, Figs 4/7) for directing air being drawn by a cooling fan (cooling fan 15, Fig 4; blowing fan 39, Fig 7) through an opening (discharge holes 12, Figs 4/7) in said tunnel located at a second end of said tunnel (end proximate front end 32a, Figs 4/7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima with the above aforementioned tunnel as taught by Tsuchiya for the purpose of cooling the motor (see abstract).
Regarding claim 13:
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima teaches the system of claim 9.
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima does not teach wherein said shroud further comprises a plurality of flow passages for the flow of forced air from said cooling fan during operation.
Tsuchiya is also in the field of motor and pump assemblies (see abstract) and teaches a rotational unit cooling shroud (walls defining cavity into which centrifugal fan 30 or blower fan 39 are located, Figs 4/7), wherein said shroud further comprises a plurality of flow passages (discharge holes 13, Fig 4; air holes 13, Fig 7) for the flow of forced air from a cooling fan (centrifugal fan 30 or blower fan 39, Figs 4/7) during operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shroud as taught by O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima with the above aforementioned flow passages as taught by Tsuchiya for the purpose of escape of discharge air from the fan (flow arrows leaving shroud, Figs 4/7).
Regarding claim 14:
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima as even further modified by Tsuchiya teaches the system of claim 13.
Tsuchiya further teaches a tunnel (space between external tube 32 and motor 11, Figs 4/7) having a first end (end proximate rear end 32b, Figs 4/7) connected to and extending about the length of a motor (motor 11, Figs 4/7) for directing air being drawn by a cooling fan (cooling fan 15, Fig 4; blowing fan 39, Fig 7) through an opening (discharge holes 12, Figs 4/7) in said tunnel located at a second end of said tunnel (end proximate front end 32a, Figs 4/7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima with the above aforementioned tunnel as taught by Tsuchiya for the purpose of cooling the motor (see abstract).
Regarding claims 16-17:
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima as even further modified by Tsuchiya teaches the system of claim 13.
O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima as even further modified by Tsuchiya does not teach:
wherein said flow passages are circular; nor
wherein said flow passages are ovular.
Applicant has disclosed no criticality of having the flow passages be circular nor ovular; nor has Applicant disclosed any new or unexpected results of having the flow passages be circular or ovular; and the flow passages of the prior art would perform the same having the shapes claimed. Mere changes in shape absent any disclosure of criticality, or disclosure of some new or unexpected result, supports a prima facie finding of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow passages as taught by O’Konek as modified by RegalRexnord as evidenced by Duke as further modified by Liepert as even further modified by Matsushima as even further modified by Tsuchiya to be circular or ovular as claimed as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240191707 to O’Konek in view of US 7121816 to Matsushima in further view of US 5616015 to Liepert.
Regarding claim 18:
O’Konek discloses a compressor motor assembly comprising:
a pump shaft (drive shaft 32, Fig 6) extending from a pump (compressor 30, Fig 6);
O’Konek does not disclose:
a rotational cooling unit shroud for housing a rotational cooling unit,
wherein the rotational cooling unit shroud and rotational cooling unit comprise a central opening for receiving the pump shaft; and
a keyed hub sleeve dimensioned and configured to house the pump shaft,
wherein the keyed hub sleeve fastens the rotational cooling unit to the pump shaft, allowing the rotation of the pump cooling fan to be fixed to the pump shaft rotation.
Matsushima teaches:
a rotational cooling unit shroud (walls of pump and motor housing defining cavity into which cooling fan 15 is located, Figs 1-2) for housing a rotational cooling unit (cooling fan 15 and adjacent unlabeled structures coupling shaft of motor 17 to driving shaft 8, Figs 1-2),
wherein the rotational cooling unit shroud and rotational cooling unit comprise a central opening (internal bores of wall through which driving shaft 8 passes through and of the coupling structures into which driving shaft 8 is received, Figs 1-2) for receiving a pump shaft (driving shaft 8, Figs 1-2); and
a keyed hub sleeve (see annotated Figure 2 below) dimensioned and configured to house the pump shaft (Fig 2), and
wherein the keyed hub sleeve fastens the rotational cooling unit to the pump, allowing the rotation of the pump cooling fan to be fixed to the pump shaft rotation (Figs 1-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as disclosed by O’Konek with the above aforementioned rotational cooling unit shroud and rotational cooling unit as taught by Matsushima for the purpose of providing cooling air flow (Col 3 Lns 11-14).
O’Konek as modified by Matsushima does not teach wherein the keyed hub comprises a counterweight for balancing the pump shaft.
Liepert teaches a hub (fan 60, Fig 1) comprising a counterweight (64, Fig 1) for balancing a pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyed hub as taught by O’Konek as modified by Matsushima with the above aforementioned counterweight as taught by Liepert for the purpose of balancing the pump (Col 7 Lns 41-44).
Regarding claim 20:
O’Konek as modified by Matsushima as further modified by Liepert teaches the compressor motor assembly of claim 18.
O’Konek as modified by Matsushima as further modified by Liepert further teaches wherein said hub sleeve is enveloped by said cooling fan and said cooling unit shroud (Matsushima: Fig 1).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Konek in view of US 7121816 to Matsushima in further view of US 5616015 to Liepert as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 8858203 to Kanaizumi.
Regarding claim 19:
O’Konek as modified by Matsushima as further modified by Liepert teaches the compressor motor assembly of claim 18.
O’Konek as modified by Matsushima as further modified by Liepert does not teach wherein said cooling fan is secured to said hub sleeve with fasteners.
Kanaizumi is also in the field of compressors (see abstract) and teaches a cooling fan (centrifugal fan 30, Fig 3) is secured to a hub (pulley 29, Fig 3) with fasteners (screws 31, Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling fan as aught by O’Konek as modified by Matsushima as further modified by Liepert to be secured to the hub sleeve with fasteners as taught by Matsushima for the purpose of fixing the fan to the hub sleeve to rotate with the hub and rotating shaft thereby creating a flow of cooling air (Col 5 Lns 57-59).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights