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 claim(s) 1-7 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 on 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the new limitation, applicant argues that “As shown in Figs. 3 and 4 of Ishihara et al. each of the through-holes 9b, the hook passing hole 29a, the through-holes 38, and the through- holes 39b of Ishihara et al. are spaced away from and unconnected to remaining ones of the through-holes 9b, the hook passing hole 29a, the through-holes 38, and the through-holes 39b of Ishihara et al. Accordingly, Ishihara et al. does not teach or suggest a first through-hole and a second through-hole which are connected to one another in the axial direction.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the previous office action defined the holes as “9b, 29a, 38, 39b, individually or in any combination.” Applicant seems to have missed the “or in any combination” part. In the current office action, the examiner has expressly stated two different interpretations for example. Secondly, applicant seems to have a narrow interpretation of the newly added limitation because applicant argues that the holes of Ishihara et al. are spaced away from each other and unconnected. But as explained below, the claim doesn’t require the holes to be directly connected. Note that two elements can be connected to each other through other elements, meaning even if two elements are not immediate neighbors and not touching each other, they could still be connected to each other through other elements.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al. (US 2009/0047118), referred to hereafter as Ishihara in view of Lowlein et al. (US2020/0355200), referred to hereafter as Lowlein.
With regard to claim 1:
Ishihara discloses a motor comprising: a rotor (7, 35) rotatable about a center axis extending vertically (note that “vertically” depends on the installation orientation, and the motor of Ishihara is capable of being installed in any orientation); a stator (part of 25 and 49, see [0029], [0030], and [0035]) to rotate the rotor; and a housing (5, 33) covering the rotor and the stator from a radially outer side (Fig. 1A-E, 2); wherein the housing includes a first housing (5 in a first interpretation, and 33 in a second interpretation, see Fig. 1E, 2, 4) located on a first side in an axial direction (Fig. 1E, 2-4), and a second housing (33 in a first interpretation, and 5 in a second interpretation, see Fig. 1E, 2-4) located on a second side in the axial direction (Fig. 1E, 2, 3); the housing includes a through-hole (9b, 29a, 38, 39b, individually or in any combination. For example, all four 9b, 29a, 38, 39b in a first interpretation, or 29a, 38 in a second interpretation, and as such in other interpretations. Also see similar holes in Fig. 8) penetrating in the axial direction, the through-hole includes a first through-hole located in the first housing, and a second through-hole located in the second housing (the first and second through-holes can be (9b, 29a) and (38, 39b), individually or in any combination. For example, they could be (9b, 29a) and (38, 39b) in a first interpretation, or 29a and 38 in a second interpretation, and as such in other interpretations. Also see similar holes in Fig. 8), and the first through-hole and the second through-hole are connected to one another in the axial direction (in a first interpretation, all holes 9b, 29a, 38, 39b are connected to one another in the axial direction, directly or indirectly, see Fig. 2 showing all holes being connected to one another in the axial direction, either by direct contact or connected through the housing outer wall, and note that the claim doesn’t require direct connection, such as being in immediate contact. In a second interpretation, the first through-hole and the second through-hole (29a and 38) are connected to one another in the axial direction).
Ishihara does not appear to explicitly disclose that at least one of the first through-hole and the second through-hole includes a small-diameter portion, and a large- diameter portion having a larger hole diameter than the small- diameter portion.
However, Lowlein teaches a housing (30, which is the combination of 31 and 32) including a hole (combination of 35 and 37, see Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B) that includes a small-diameter portion (35, see Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B) and a large-diameter portion (37, or 37a, or 37b) having a larger hole diameter than the small-diameter portion (compare sections 35 with 37, or 37a, or 37b in Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B. Also note that some embodiments are not depicted, for example, [0026] describes an embodiment similar to Fig. 2A/2B in which the portions are oriented centrically). Lowlein further teaches a screw (34) fastened inside the hole (Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B) and teaches that the small-diameter portion (35) of the hole is the hole into which the screw (34) is screwed (Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B), and a hole diameter of the large-diameter portion (37) is larger than an outer diameter of the screw (Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely having a hole with a small-diameter portion and a large-diameter portion with a larger hole diameter than the small-diameter portion such that a hole diameter of the large-diameter portion is larger than an outer diameter of a screw portion used in the hole, to improve similar devices in the same way, and apply this technique to the first through-hole, the second through-hole, or to both of the first and second through-holes of Ishihara.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Ishihara and Lowlein further discloses that the small-diameter portion and the large-diameter portion are provided in the first through-hole (see the rejection of claim 1, in which the technique was applied to the first through-hole, the second through-hole, or to both of the first and second through-holes of Ishihara), the small-diameter portion of the first through-hole is located on the first side in the axial direction, and the large-diameter portion of the first through-hole is located on the second side in the axial direction (Ishihara, Fig. 1E, 2-4. Also note that claim 1 has first and second interpretations).
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Ishihara and Lowlein further discloses that the small-diameter portion and the large-diameter portion are provided in the second through-hole (see the rejection of claim 1, in which the technique was applied to the first through-hole, the second through-hole, or to both of the first and second through-holes of Ishihara), the small-diameter portion of the second through-hole is located on the second side in the axial direction, and the large-diameter portion of the second through-hole is located on the first side in the axial direction (Ishihara, Fig. 1E, 2-4. Also note that claim 1 has first and second interpretations).
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Ishihara and Lowlein further discloses that one of the first housing and the second housing includes a convex portion protruding to the radially inner side from a radially inner surface (Ishihara, see the inclined surface of 53a in Fig. 4), another one of the first housing and the second housing includes a recess (Ishihara, the recess is where the convex part of 53a goes into) that is recessed in the axial direction and in which the convex portion is located (Ishihara, Fig. 2), and the convex portion is provided at an outer edge portion of the through-hole (Ishihara, Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Ishihara and Lowlein further discloses that the small-diameter portion of the through-hole is a hole into which a fastener including a screw portion is screwed (see Ishihara [0028], [0031], [0037], [0038], and also see screw 34 in Lowlein), and a hole diameter of the large-diameter portion is larger than an outer diameter of the screw portion (see the rejection of claim 1 in which the technique includes the hole such that a hole diameter of the large-diameter portion is larger than an outer diameter of a screw portion used in the hole).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Ishihara and Lowlein further discloses that a length of the small-diameter portion in the axial direction is shorter than a length of the large-diameter portion in the axial direction (Lowlein, Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B).
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Ishihara and Lowlein discloses an axial fan including the motor according to claim 1, and a rotor blade attached to the rotor (see Ishihara, Fig. 1A-1D, 2. Also see the title and [0025]).
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Ishihara and Lowlein discloses that both of the first through-hole and the second through-hole include the small-diameter portion and the large-diameter portion (see the last statement in the rejection of claim 1 stating “apply this technique to the first through-hole, the second through-hole, or to both of the first and second through-holes of Ishihara”).
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Ishihara and Lowlein discloses that the first through-hole and the second through-hole are directly continuous with one another (Ishihara, in a first interpretation, all holes 9b, 29a, 38, 39b are directly continuous with one another, see Fig. 2 showing first through-hole and the second through-hole are directly continuous with one another, either by direct contact or continuous through the housing outer wall, and note that the claim doesn’t require direct connection, such as being in immediate contact. In a second interpretation, the first through-hole and the second through-hole (29a and 38) are directly continuous with one another).
***************************************************************************************************
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (JP 2020-105974), referred to hereafter as Kodama in view of Lowlein et al. (US2020/0355200), referred to hereafter as Lowlein.
With regard to claim 1:
Kodama discloses a motor comprising: a rotor (Fig. 2) rotatable about a center axis extending vertically (note that “vertically” depends on the installation orientation, and the motor of Kodama is capable of being installed in any orientation); a stator (Fig. 2) to rotate the rotor; and a housing (30) covering the rotor and the stator from a radially outer side (Fig. 2); wherein the housing includes a first housing (34A in a first interpretation, and 34B in a second interpretation, see Fig. 3) located on a first side in an axial direction (Fig. 3), and a second housing (34B in a first interpretation, and 34A in a second interpretation, see Fig. 3) located on a second side in the axial direction (Fig. 3); the housing includes a through-hole (34A1, 34B1) penetrating in the axial direction, the through-hole includes a first through-hole located in the first housing, and a second through-hole located in the second housing (34A1, 34B1), and the first through-hole and the second through-hole are connected to one another in the axial direction (Fig. 1, 2, 7).
Kodama does not appear to explicitly disclose that at least one of the first through-hole and the second through-hole includes a small-diameter portion, and a large- diameter portion having a larger hole diameter than the small- diameter portion.
However, Lowlein teaches a housing (30, which is the combination of 31 and 32) including a hole (combination of 35 and 37, see Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B) that includes a small-diameter portion (35, see Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B) and a large-diameter portion (37, or 37a, or 37b) having a larger hole diameter than the small-diameter portion (compare sections 35 with 37, or 37a, or 37b in Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B. Also note that some embodiments are not depicted, for example, [0026] describes an embodiment similar to Fig. 2A/2B in which the portions are oriented centrically). Lowlein further teaches a screw (34) fastened inside the hole (Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B) and teaches that the small-diameter portion (35) of the hole is the hole into which the screw (34) is screwed (Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B), and a hole diameter of the large-diameter portion (37) is larger than an outer diameter of the screw (Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely having a hole with a small-diameter portion and a large-diameter portion with a larger hole diameter than the small-diameter portion such that a hole diameter of the large-diameter portion is larger than an outer diameter of a screw portion used in the hole, to improve similar devices in the same way, and apply this technique to the first through-hole, the second through-hole, or to both of the first and second through-holes of Kodama.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Kodama and Lowlein further discloses that the small-diameter portion and the large-diameter portion are provided in the first through-hole (see the rejection of claim 1, in which the technique was applied to the first through-hole, the second through-hole, or to both of the first and second through-holes of Kodama), the small-diameter portion of the first through-hole is located on the first side in the axial direction, and the large-diameter portion of the first through-hole is located on the second side in the axial direction (Kodama, Fig. 1-7. Also note that claim 1 has first and second interpretations).
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Kodama and Lowlein further discloses that the small-diameter portion and the large-diameter portion are provided in the second through-hole (see the rejection of claim 1, in which the technique was applied to the first through-hole, the second through-hole, or to both of the first and second through-holes of Kodama), the small-diameter portion of the second through-hole is located on the second side in the axial direction, and the large-diameter portion of the second through-hole is located on the first side in the axial direction (Kodama, Fig. 1-7. Also note that claim 1 has first and second interpretations).
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Kodama and Lowlein further discloses that one of the first housing and the second housing includes a convex portion protruding to the radially inner side from a radially inner surface (Kodama, see 34A3 in Fig. 3 in a first interpretation. See annotated Fig. 3 below for a second interpretation. Note that a convex portion is a 3-dimensional element that stretches in all 3 dimensions), another one of the first housing and the second housing includes a recess (Kodama, see 34B3 in Fig. 3 in a first interpretation. See annotated Fig. 3 below for a second interpretation) that is recessed in the axial direction and in which the convex portion is located (Kodama, Fig. 3. Note that a recess is a 3-dimensional element that stretches in all 3 dimensions), and the convex portion is provided at an outer edge portion of the through-hole (Kodama, Fig. 3, 5, 7 in a first interpretation. See annotated Fig. 3 below for a second interpretation).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Kodama
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Kodama and Lowlein further discloses that the small-diameter portion of the through-hole is a hole into which a fastener including a screw portion is screwed (see Kodama disclosing “through holes 34A1 and 34B1 are provided at the four corners of the first housing 34A and the second housing 34B so that they can be attached to other devices by bolts or the like”, and also see screw 34 in Lowlein), and a hole diameter of the large-diameter portion is larger than an outer diameter of the screw portion (see the rejection of claim 1 in which the technique includes the hole such that a hole diameter of the large-diameter portion is larger than an outer diameter of a screw portion used in the hole).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Kodama and Lowlein further discloses that a length of the small-diameter portion in the axial direction is shorter than a length of the large-diameter portion in the axial direction (Lowlein, Fig. 2A/2B-5A/5B).
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Kodama and Lowlein discloses an axial fan including the motor according to claim 1, and a rotor blade attached to the rotor (see Kodama, Fig. 2. Also see the title).
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Kodama and Lowlein discloses that both of the first through-hole and the second through-hole include the small-diameter portion and the large-diameter portion (see the last statement in the rejection of claim 1 stating “apply this technique to the first through-hole, the second through-hole, or to both of the first and second through-holes of Kodama”).
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Kodama and Lowlein discloses that the first through-hole and the second through-hole are directly continuous with one another (Kodama, Fig. 1, 2, 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar motor such as US 20120280090, US 20140147269, US11221023.
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 BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights