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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claim 9. Specifically, the Applicant argues that Shanmukha fails to teach of suggest “each wind blade set is disposed between the rotor and a corresponding one of the two thermally-conductive covers.” In at least figure 2, Shanmukha depicts rotor 26 inside of a case 22 with each impellers 44 at either end of the rotor. The impellers 44, clearly are disposed between the axial end of the rotor 26 and a side of the case 22 at the top and bottom of the page. As there is a clear depiction of the claimed disposition of the “wind blades” therefore each and every limitation is taught by the combination of De Filippis in view of Shanmukha and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by De Filippis et al (US 20080030087 A1) in view of Mehta et al (US 5883449 A).
With respect to claim 1, De Filippis teaches a motor structure comprising: a stator ring (fig. 1, stator 3) having a rotor accommodation space (fig. 1, area inside stator 3); a rotor disposed within the rotor accommodation space (fig. 1, rotor 3); a wind blade set disposed on one side of the rotor (fig. 1, ventilator vessel 5); and a thermally-conductive casing enclosing the stator ring (paragraph 25 “According to a further embodiment, the motor housing or at least the part of the motor housing that is in heat conducting connection with the external stator, can be realized as a light metal die cast part.”), the rotor and the wind blade set, wherein the thermally-conductive casing includes a thermally-conductive cover having a plurality of radially-inner holes (fig. 1, ventilation openings 4.3 in vessel 4.2) and a plurality of radially-outer holes (fig. 1, air gap opening 6.1).
De Filippis teaches does not teach “the thermally-conductive cover includes a flow-blocking ring located between the radially-inner holes and the radially-outer holes; the flow-blocking ring protrudes from a surface of the thermally-conductive cover.”
Mehta teaches the thermally-conductive cover includes a flow-blocking ring located between the radially-inner holes and the radially-outer holes; the flow-blocking ring protrudes from a surface of the thermally-conductive cover. (see figure 1 marked below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the blocking ring of Mehta in order to guide the flow of air such that there are defined inlets and outlets so that fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
With respect to claim 2, De Filippis in view of Mehta teaches the above-mentioned limitations. De Filippis further teaches the radially-inner holes are axially aligned with the wind blade set (see figure 1, ventilation openings 4.3 are axially are at least partially coextensive with ventilator vessel 5).
With respect to claim 8, De Filippis in view of Mehta teaches the above-mentioned limitations. De Filippis further teaches the thermally-conductive casing includes another thermally-conductive cover (fig. 1, housing cover 4.1), and the another thermally-conductive cover includes a plurality of heat dissipation fins (paragraph 32 “Clearly to be seen arranged on the exterior of the housing vessel 4.2 are the moldings in the form of cooling fins 4.4”).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Filippis in view of Mehta in further view of AJIOKA et al (US 20220239184 A1).
With respect to claim 4, De Filippis in view of Mehta teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the wind blade set includes a plurality of blades, and a radial length of each blade is smaller than a radius of the flow-blocking ring.”
AJIOKA teaches the wind blade set includes a plurality of blades (fig. 5, blade 261), and a radial length of each blade is smaller than a radius of the flow-blocking ring (see figure 5, blades are at least partially shorter than the flow ring area between the inlets 27 and outlets 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the protruding cover of Mehta with the differing blade lengths of AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there is fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
With respect to claim 5, De Filippis in view of Mehta teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each radially-inner hole is radially located between two immediately-adjacent ones of the radially-outer holes, and each radially-outer hole is radially located between two immediately-adjacent ones of the radially-inner holes.”
AJIOKA teaches each radially-inner hole is radially located between two immediately-adjacent ones of the radially-outer holes (see figure 2 above, the inlets 27 and outlets 28 alternate circumferential position), and each radially-outer hole is radially located between two immediately-adjacent ones of the radially-inner holes (see figure 2 above, the inlets 27 and outlets 28 alternate circumferential position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the protruding cover of Mehta with the inlets AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there are defined inlets and outlets so that fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
With respect to claim 6, De Filippis in view of Mehta teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each radially-outer hole is axially aligned with a corresponding coil of the stator ring.”
AJIOKA teaches each radially-outer hole is axially aligned with a corresponding coil of the stator ring (see at least figure 6, conductor 21 is at least partially aligned with outlet 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the protruding cover of Mehta with the inlets of AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there are defined inlets and outlets so that fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
With respect to claim 7, De Filippis in view of Mehta teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each radially-outer hole is axially aligned with portions of two corresponding coils of the stator ring and a gap between the two corresponding coils.”
AJIOKA teaches each radially-outer hole is axially aligned with portions of two corresponding coils of the stator ring and a gap between the two corresponding coils (see at least figure 2 and 6, conductor 21 is at least partially aligned with outlet 28 in the axial direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the protruding cover of Mehta with the inlets of AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there are defined inlets and outlets so that fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Filippis in view of Shanmukha et al (US 20240055948 A1).
With respect to claim 9, De Filippis teaches a motor structure comprising: a stator ring having a rotor accommodation space (fig. 1, stator 3); a rotor disposed in the rotor accommodation space (fig. 1, rotor 3); and two thermally-conductive covers are assembled to form a thermally-conductive casing to enclose the stator ring (fig. 1, vessel 4 and paragraph 25 “According to a further embodiment, the motor housing or at least the part of the motor housing that is in heat conducting connection with the external stator, can be realized as a light metal die cast part.” ), the rotor and the two wind blade sets, wherein each thermally-conductive cover has a plurality of radially-inner holes and a plurality of radially-outer holes (fig. 1, ventilation openings 4.3 in vessel 4.2 and air gap opening 6.1).
De Filippis does not teach “teaches two wind blade sets disposed on two opposite sides of the rotor, each wind blade set is disposed between the rotor and a corresponding one of the two thermally-conductive covers.”
Shanmukha teaches two wind blade sets disposed on two opposite sides of the rotor (fig. 4, impellers 44A, 44B each wind blade set is disposed between the rotor and a corresponding one of the two thermally-conductive covers (see at least figure 2, rotor 26 inside of a case 22 with each impellers 44 at either end of the rotor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the two wind blade sets of Shanmukha in order to further cool the stator thereby decreasing the chance of heat related damage to the motor components.
With respect to claim 10, De Filippis in view of Shanmukha teaches the above-mentioned limitations. De Filippis further teaches the radially-inner holes are axially aligned with the two wind blade sets, and the radially-outer holes are axially aligned with corresponding coils of the stator ring (see figure 1, ventilation openings 4.3 are axially are at least partially coextensive with ventilator vessel 5).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Filippis in view of Shanmukha in further view of AJIOKA.
With respect to claim 11, De Filippis in view of Shanmukha teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the thermally-conductive cover includes a flow-blocking ring located between the radially-inner holes and the radially-outer holes.”
AJIOKA teaches the thermally-conductive cover includes a flow-blocking ring located between the radially-inner holes and the radially-outer holes (see figure 2 marked below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the twin blade sets of Shanmukha with the blocking ring of AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there are defined inlets and outlets so that fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
With respect to claim 12, De Filippis in view of Shanmukha teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the wind blade set includes a plurality of blades, and a radial length of each blade is smaller than a radius of the flow-blocking ring.”
AJIOKA teaches the wind blade set includes a plurality of blades (fig. 5, blade 261), and a radial length of each blade is smaller than a radius of the flow-blocking ring (see figure 5, blades are at least partially shorter than the flow ring area between the inlets 27 and outlets 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the twin blade sets of Shanmukha with the differing blade lengths of AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there is fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
With respect to claim 13, De Filippis in view of Shanmukha teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each wind blade set includes a plurality of radially-inner blades and a plurality of radially-outer blades, and radial lengths of all the radially-inner blades and the radially-outer blades are smaller than a radius of the flow-blocking ring”
AJIOKA teaches each wind blade set includes a plurality of radially-inner blades and a plurality of radially-outer blades (fig. 1, blades 261 and 262), and radial lengths of all the radially-inner blades and the radially-outer blades are smaller than a radius of the flow-blocking ring (see figure 5, blades are at least partially shorter than the flow ring area between the inlets 27 and outlets 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the twin blade sets of Shanmukha with the differing blade lengths of AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there is fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
With respect to claim 14, De Filippis in view of Shanmukha teaches above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each radially-inner hole is radially located between two immediately-adjacent ones of the radially-outer holes, and each radially-outer hole is radially located between two immediately-adjacent ones of the radially-inner holes.”
AJIOKA teaches each radially-inner hole is radially located between two immediately-adjacent ones of the radially-outer holes (see figure 2 above, the inlets 27 and outlets 28 alternate circumferential position), and each radially-outer hole is radially located between two immediately-adjacent ones of the radially-inner holes (see figure 2 above, the inlets 27 and outlets 28 alternate circumferential position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the twin blade sets of Shanmukha with the inlets AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there are defined inlets and outlets so that fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
With respect to claim 15, De Filippis in view of Shanmukha teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “each radially-outer hole is axially aligned with portions of two corresponding coils of the stator ring and a gap between the two corresponding coils.”
AJIOKA teaches each radially-outer hole is axially aligned with portions of two corresponding coils of the stator ring and a gap between the two corresponding coils (see at least figure 2 and 6, conductor 21 is at least partially aligned with outlet 28 in the axial direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed,
to combine the motor of De Filippis with the twin blade sets of Shanmukha with the inlets of AJIOKA in order to guide the flow of air such that there are defined inlets and outlets so that fresh air can be constantly supplied for cooling.
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 RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights