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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6, 8, 11, & 19-30 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 24th, 2026.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, & 12-18 will be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, & 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0128022 to Yeh et al.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 9, and with particular reference to Figures 1-5, Yeh et al. (Yeh hereinafter) discloses:
1. An aerodynamic stator (12) for an air-moving device (“fan”; para. 16), the aerodynamic stator comprising: a hub (122, 123a; Figs. 1 & 3-4) defining a central cavity (an annular cavity near lead line 122 is seen in Fig. 1; additionally, a central inlet cavity 121b is formed at least partly by the hub, and clearly receives the motor as shown in Fig. 2), wherein a size of the cavity and a shape of the cavity are configured to receive a motor (14, 18; Fig. 1) of an air-moving device or a control unit of the air-moving device; and conductive stator vanes (123c, 126; Figs. 3-4) radially extending away from an outer surface of the hub, wherein the conductive stator vanes are configured to be in conductive communication with the motor or the control unit based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 17-18, 20, 22).
9. An assembly (Fig. 1) for an air-moving device (“fan”; para. 16), the assembly comprising: a motor (14, 18; Fig. 1); and an aerodynamic stator (12) comprising: a hub (122, 123a; Figs. 1 & 3-4) defining a central cavity (an annular cavity near lead line 122 is seen in Fig. 1; additionally, central cavity 121b is formed at least partly by the hub), wherein the motor is received within the central cavity of the hub (Figs. 1-2 make clear that at least one of the cavities defined by the hub receives the motor); and conductive stator vanes (123c, 126; Figs. 3-4) radially extending away from an outer surface of the hub, wherein the motor is in conductive communication with the conductive stator vanes (paras. 17-18, 20, 22).
In regards to Claim 2, the motor or the control unit is in thermal communication with the hub (para. 22); and the conductive stator vanes comprise at least one thermally conductive stator vane (123c) configured to be in thermal communication with the motor or the control unit via the hub based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 18, 22).
In regards to Claim 3, the conductive stator vanes comprise at least one electrically conductive stator vane (126) configured to be in electrical communication with the motor or the control unit based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 17, 20).
In regards to Claim 4, the motor or the control unit is in thermal communication with the hub (paras. 18, 22); the conductive stator vanes comprise at least one thermally conductive stator vane (123c) configured to be in thermal communication with the motor or the control unit via the hub based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 18, 22); and the conductive stator vanes comprise at least one electrically conductive stator vane (126) configured to be in electrical communication with the motor or the control unit based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 17, 20).
In regards to Claim 7, the motor of the air-moving device is received within the central cavity of the hub (Figs. 1-2; see also Claims 1 & 9).
In regards to Claim 10, the conductive stator vanes comprise thermally conductive stator vanes (123, 123c) in thermal communication with the hub (paras. 18, 22); an outer surface of the motor is in thermal communication with an inner surface (i.e. the surface seen in Fig. 1; see also inner surface 124 in Fig. 4) of the hub; and the hub is configured to conduct, away from the motor toward the thermally conductive stator vanes, heat generated by the motor (paras. 18, 22).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, & 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0272854 to Violett in view of US 2007/0128022 to Yeh et al.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 9, and with particular reference to Figures 1-3, Violett discloses:
1. An aerodynamic stator (12, 18, 20) for an air-moving device (“power plant for a jet-type model airplanes”; Abstract), the aerodynamic stator comprising: a hub (18) defining a central cavity (Fig. 3; para. 25), wherein a size of the cavity and a shape of the cavity are configured to receive a motor (22; para. 25; Fig. 3) of an air-moving device or a control unit of the air-moving device (Figs. 1-3); and stator vanes (20) radially extending away from an outer surface of the hub (Figs. 1 & 3), wherein the stator vanes are configured to be (i.e. structurally arranged to be) in conductive communication with the motor or the control unit based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (Figs 1 & 3).
9. An assembly (Figs. 1 & 3) for an air-moving device (“power plant for a jet-type model airplanes”; Abstract), the assembly comprising: a motor (22); and an aerodynamic stator (12, 18, 20) comprising: a hub (18) defining a central cavity (Fig. 3; para. 25), wherein the motor is received within the central cavity of the hub (para. 25; Fig. 3); and stator vanes (20) radially extending away from an outer surface of the hub (Fig. 1),
While Violett discloses much of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not specify that his stator vanes 18 are “conductive” or that the motor 22 is “in conductive communication with the conductive stator vanes”, as claimed. In this case, while Violett clearly discloses a conductive metallic hub 18, he does not detail the material of the stator vanes 18, and thus, it cannot be said with certainty that they are conductive (or configured to conduct heat).
However, arranging an electric motor to be in conducive communication with conductive stator vanes is well known in the art of axial fan driven by electric motors, as shown by Yeh et al. (detailed previously above). Yeh makes clear that by arranging the stator vanes to be both thermally conductive (i.e. vanes 123c) and electrically conductive (i.e. vane 126), heat dissipation and control signaling/powering of the motor can be improved. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an aircraft engine with improved motor reliability and integrated motor control pathways, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Yeh in combination with those seen in Violett in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Violett’s stator vanes to be thermally and electrically conductive (as taught in Yeh) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being improved heat dissipation from the motor and integrated control signaling/powering to the motor.
In regards to Claim 2, the motor or the control unit of Violett is in thermal communication with the hub (this results via the combination with Yeh); and the conductive stator vanes of Violett comprise at least one thermally conductive stator vane (123c, from Yeh) configured to be in thermal communication with the motor or the control unit via the hub based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 18, 22 of Yeh).
In regards to Claim 3, the conductive stator vanes (from Yeh, now provided in Violett) comprise at least one electrically conductive stator vane (126) configured to be in electrical communication with the motor or the control unit based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 17, 20 of Yeh).
In regards to Claim 4, the motor or the control unit of Violett is in thermal communication with the hub (para. 25); the conductive stator vanes comprise at least one thermally conductive stator vane (123c from Yeh) configured to be in thermal communication with the motor or the control unit via the hub based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 18, 22 of Yeh); and the conductive stator vanes comprise at least one electrically conductive stator vane (126 from Yeh) configured to be in electrical communication with the motor or the control unit based on the motor or the control unit being received within the central cavity of the hub (paras. 17, 20 of Yeh).
In regards to Claim 5, the air-moving device is an aircraft propulsor (Abstract of Violett).
In regards to Claim 7, the motor of the air-moving device is received within the central cavity of the hub (Figs. 1 & 3 of Violett).
In regards to Claim 10, the conductive stator vanes (from Yeh, now provided in Violett) comprise thermally conductive stator vanes (123c from Yeh) in thermal communication with the hub (paras. 18, 22 of Yeh); an outer surface of the motor is in thermal communication with an inner surface of the hub (Figs. 1 & 3 and para. 25 of Violett); and the hub is configured to conduct, away from the motor toward the thermally conductive stator vanes, heat generated by the motor (para. 25).
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0128022 to Yeh et al. (applied above) in view of US 10,736,232 to Ou et al.
In regards to Claim 14, Yeh discloses the assembly of claim 9, but fails to disclose that the conductive stator vanes (123c, 126) comprise electrically conductive stator vanes (plural) in electrical communication with the motor (in this case, Yeh discloses only a single electrically conductive stator vane 126).
However, Ou et al. (Ou) discloses another axial fan assembly (Fig. 1) similar to Yeh, and which likewise discloses a motor (123; Figs. 1-2) and an aerodynamic stator (11) comprising: a hub (112; Fig. 1), wherein the motor is received by the hub (Fig. 1), and wherein conductive stator vanes (114; Fig. 1) radially extend away from an outer surface of the hub, wherein the motor is in conductive communication with the conductive stator vanes (via integrated wiring 16, which includes distinct integrated wire sets 160, 169 in two respective vanes 114 so as to receive power and/or control signals). Ou makes clear that through use of the two electrically conductive vanes, two axial fans can be electrically linked together serially (Figs. 1 & 4-5), with the first fan acting as a signal transmission node for a second fan (Abstract), thereby allowing for increasing airflow. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an axial fan with increased versatility (i.e. one that is capable of powering/controlling additional axial fans, as needed), it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Ou in combination with those seen in Yeh in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeh’s aerodynamic stator vanes (123c, 126) to include a second electrically conductive vane (126) (i.e. now having a first vane 126 with power/signal input wiring and a second vane 126 with power/signal output wiring, as taught in Ou) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an axial fan capable of acting as a signal transmission node for subsequent fans when increased airflow is necessary (as taught in Ou).
In regards to Claim 15, at least one of the electrically conductive stator vanes is configured to deliver power to the motor (this is apparent in Ou; see Claim 14 above and “power wires 161 and 162” in Fig. 5).
In regards to Claim 16, at least one of the electrically conductive stator vanes is configured to deliver control signaling to the motor (this is apparent in Ou; see Claim 14 above and “control wire 163” in Fig. 5).
In regards to Claim 17, at least one of the electrically conductive stator vanes is configured to deliver power to the motor and at least one of the electrically conductive stator vanes is configured to deliver control signaling to the motor (this reads upon the input power/control vane 114 in Ou; in other words, a single vane providing both power and control reads upon the language of Claim 17).
In regards to Claim 18, the conductive stator vanes comprise thermally conductive stator vanes in thermal communication with the hub (as taught in Yeh; as noted above for Claim 9) and comprise electrically conductive stator vanes in electrical communication with the motor (as taught in Ou, as noted above for Claims 14-17); an outer surface of the motor (i.e. lower axial end surface) is in thermal communication with an inner surface of the hub (clearly seen in Fig. 1 of Yeh; see also inner surface 124 in Fig. 4); and the hub is configured to conduct, away from the motor toward the thermally conductive stator vanes, heat generated by the motor (paras. 17, 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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: the best available prior art fails to disclose the assembly of claim 10, wherein: each thermally conductive stator vane comprises: a blade radially extending between a root of the thermally conductive stator vane and a tip of the thermally conductive stator vane; and an axial flange axially extending forward of the blade; the hub is at least partially defined by an axial ring formed by each respective axial flange of the thermally conductive stator vanes; and an outer circumferential surface of the motor is in thermal communication with an inner circumferential surface of the axial ring. Similarly, the best available prior art fails to disclose the assembly of claim 10, wherein: each thermally conductive stator vane comprises: a blade radially extending between a root of the thermally conductive stator vane and a tip of the thermally conductive stator vane; and a radial lug radially extending away from the blade toward a center of the hub; the hub is at least partially defined by a radial ring formed by each respective radial lug of the thermally conductive stator vanes; and an outer surface of an aft end of the motor is in thermal communication with the radial lug.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please also refer to US 2008/0219836 to Decker et al., WO 2022/200458 to Schmidt, US 2007/0252451 to Shibuya et al., and US 2012/0039732 to Chang, each of which discloses an aerodynamic stator structure having conductive stator vanes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights