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 .
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) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka (US 20170107994) in view of Shiraishi (US 20210095686).
Regarding claim 1, Kosaka discloses A centrifugal fan comprising:
a first portion provided in a rotor that rotates integrally with a shaft (Figure 2, item 44 shows a first portion that rotates with the shaft as is described in paragraph 0023); and
a second portion provided in a fan unit having a plurality of blades and fixed to the rotor (Figure 2, item 84 shows a second portion with blades 88) and having a greater linear coefficient of expansion than that of the first portion (Paragraph 0019 describes that the fan portion 80 is made of a synthetic resin and paragraph 0023 describes that the yoke is made of metal. Synthetic resins have greater linear coefficients of expansion than metals), wherein
the first portion includes
a first top portion extending from a first hole through which the shaft is inserted toward a radially outside of the shaft (Figure 2 shows a shaft passing through a hole in 44) and having a first flat surface facing a first axial direction in an axial direction of the shaft (Annotated Figure 2 shows the first flat surface facing a first axial direction which is upwards on the figure), and
a first tubular portion having a tubular shape and extending from a radially outside end portion of the first top portion in a second axial direction opposite to the first axial direction (Annotated Figure 2 shows a first tubular portion located at the radially outer end of the flat surface and extends in the second axial direction, which is downwards on the figure),
the second portion includes
a second top portion located in the first axial direction with respect to the first top portion, extending to the radially outside from a second hole through which the shaft is inserted (Figure 2 shows the shaft 42 passing through a hole 84 of the second top portion), and having a second flat surface facing the first flat surface (Annotated Figure 2 shows a second flat surface facing the first flat surface), and
a second tubular portion having a tubular shape, extending in the second axial direction from a radially outside end portion of the second top portion (Annotated Figure 2 shows a second tubular portion), and having an inner tube surface facing an outer tube surface of the first tubular portion with a first clearance therebetween (Annotated Figure 2 shows that gaps exists at the corner interface between the first and second tubular portions, which provides a clearance. The limitations do not describe where and for how far the clearance exists).
However, Kosaka does not explicitly disclose that
the first top portion is provided with a protrusion protruding in the first axial direction beyond the first flat surface and abutting on the second flat surface, or the second top portion is provided with a protrusion protruding in the second axial direction beyond the second flat surface and abutting on the first flat surface, and
the first flat surface and the second flat surface are bonded and fixed to each other with an adhesive provided in a second clearance formed by the protrusion.
Kosaka and Shiraishi are analogous prior art because both describe fan structures that bond the impeller and yoke. Shiraishi teaches providing a protrusion (Figure 4, item 53) protruding in an axial direction beyond a surface and abutting a second surface and bonding and fixing the two surfaces to each other with an adhesive provided in a clearance formed by the protrusion (Par. 0058 describes that an adhesive can be used to bond the two together and describers that the melting from the protrusion can be possible, which would be an adhesive. Further, Figure 4 shows a clearance around item 53 which could hold the adhesive). Shiraishi paragraph 0058 further describes that the securing mechanism allows for automatic correction of the axial alignment between the items while securing the two items in a fixed arrangement. Kosaka already describes securing the fan 80 to the upper side of the yoke 44 (Par. 0023) but does not describe how they should be fixed so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable way to connect the two.
As both Kosaka and Shiraishi describe bonding axial facing surfaces of a yoke and an impeller, both describe the impellers being made of resin, and both describe bonding items intended to rotate together, the protrusion connection of Shiraishi would provide predictable results when provided in the connection between the two flat faces of Kosaka. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the projection and adhesive bonding arrangement of Shiraishi in the connection between the first and second flat faces of Kosaka because the securing mechanism allows for automatic correction of the axial alignment between the items while securing the two items in a fixed arrangement (Par. 0058) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As both the impellers are resin, the projection of Kosaka in view of Shiraishi would be located on the second flat surface and abut the first flat surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
509
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 2, Kosaka in view of Shiraishi teaches that a protruding amount of the protrusion from the first flat surface or the second flat surface is set to an optimum film thickness of the adhesive. The limitations do not describe what makes an optimum film thickness or set a specific film thickness, so as long as the adhesive thickness and protruding amount is suitable for the bonding, the limitations are met. These limitations are functional language as well, so the limitations are taught by the structure described above. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 3, Kosaka in view of Shiraishi teaches that the second top portion has a main portion extending to the radially outside and a second axial direction side from the second hole. Annotated Figure 2 shows the second main portion extending axially in the second direction (it is located axially below the axial top portion of the hole as can be seen in Figure 2) and radially outside from the hole.
Regarding claim 4, Kosaka in view of Shiraishi teaches that the second top portion further includes a rib portion protruding from the main portion in the second axial direction to reinforce the main portion (Annotated Figure 2 shows a rib portion extending from the main portion in the second axial direction), and an end surface of the rib portion on the second axial direction side forms the second flat surface (Annotated Figure 2 shows the axial end of the rib portion forms part of the second flat surface).
Regarding claim 5, Kosaka in view of Shiraishi teaches that the protrusion protrudes from the second flat surface of the second top portion. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the projection extends from the second flat surface.
Regarding claim 7, Kosaka in view of Shiraishi teaches that the rib portion is provided at a position apart from the second tubular portion in a radial direction (Annotated Figure 2 shows the rib portion being radially spaced from the second tubular portion).
Regarding claim 8, Kosaka in view of Shiraishi teaches that the rib portion is provided at a position apart from the second hole in the radial direction (Annotated Figure 2 shows the rib portion spaced from the second hole in the radial direction).
Regarding claim 9, Kosaka in view of Shiraishi teaches that the first portion is made of metal, the second portion is made of resin (Paragraph 0019 describes that the fan portion 80 is made of a synthetic resin and paragraph 0023 describes that the yoke is made of metal), and the protrusion is provided on the second top portion (As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the projection extends from the second flat surface).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art relied upon does not show any items that meet the required limitations of the auxiliary rib portion of claim 6 and there was no reason found as to why providing such an auxiliar rib might have been obvious. With regards to claim 10, the protrusion of Kosaka in view of Shiraishi seems to be annular and there was no reason found as to why one might choose to modify the projection to make multiple arranged protrusions as that would lessen the surface area for bonding. No other prior art was found that provided a protrusion structure and arrangement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. Nara (US 20170284420) shows pins that pass through two separate parts but do not abut against the facing surfaces. Dreschel (US 20160084255) shows a key structure to prevent rotation of two impeller items but the key portion is separate and does not project from either surface. Ishii (US 20180355882) shows a relevant impeller and yoke structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745