CTFR 19/212,932 CTFR 94407 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered. The drawing objection and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claim 4 is withdrawn based upon the amendment. The applicant argues that Oguma does not disclose the fan hub is adjacent the first end and a plurality of blades are adjacent the second end due to the blades circumscribing the rotor holder 31. The examiner disagrees, as the first and second ends may be considered to be along the axial direction and that the blades (10) are adjacent the second end as they extend to the end opposite of (31) in the axial direction. The applicant further argues that Oguma does not disclose the plurality of blades are disposed between the fan hub and the ring. The examiner disagrees as a large portion of the blades (10) are axially between the fan hub (31) and the ring (33). This manner of interpreting what is required by an element being between two other elements is within the broadest reasonable interpretation. It is noted that the examiner finds that the applicant relies upon a similar definition for support for the amendment as in Figure 7 of the instant application shows blades (203) is axially between hub (215) and ring (220), but only in the sense that the blades are at a location axially between the axial locations of the hub and the ring. The blades extend radially outward such that they are out of alignment with a vector between the hub and the ring. Any changes to the rejection are necessitated by amendment and the rejections are therefore final. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Oguma et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20100232967) hereinafter Oguma . Regarding claim 1, Oguma discloses: A fan and motor assembly for a blower {Figure 1, (2), (3), and (4) form a fan and motor assembly for a blower}, comprising: a fan extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end {Figure 1, the fan (2)/(3) extends between a first end at the top of the page and a second end towards the bottom of the page}, the fan comprising a fan hub adjacent the first end and a plurality of blades adjacent the second end {Figure 1, (31) is part of the fan hub and is adjacent the first end. A plurality of blades (10) are adjacent the second end as they extend all the way to the bottom of (2)/(3)}, wherein the fan hub and the plurality of blades of the fan are integrally formed together {Figure 1, the fan hub, which includes (31) and (22), is formed integrally with (10); [0029]/[0052]}; a rotor coupled to the fan {Figure 1 (32) is coupled to (31) which is part of the fan; [0030]}, the fan at least partially surrounding the rotor {Figure 1 (31)/(22) radially surrounds (32)}; and a ring coupled to the second end of the fan and the rotor for securing the rotor to the fan {Figure 7A, (33) is a ring coupled to the second end of the fan, which includes (33)/(22). The ring (33) is also coupled to the rotor (32); assists in securing the rotor to the fan; [0030]} wherein the plurality of blades are disposed between the fan hub and the ring {Figures 1 and 7A, the plurality of blades (10) are axially between the fan hub (31) and the ring (33)}. Regarding claim 2, Oguma further discloses: a shaft coupled to the fan and extending along a rotational axis of the fan {Figure 1 (40) is coupled to the fan via bearings (52) and extends along a rotational axis of the fan (J)}. a stator coupled to and at least partially surrounding the shaft {Figure 1, the stator (4) includes (42) which surrounds shaft (43)}. Regarding claim 3, Oguma further discloses: Wherein the stator is press fit onto the shaft {Figure 1 (42) is secured to the (43); [0030]. The examiner finds that press fit is a process of attaching two members. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, see MPEP 2113. The examiner finds that the structure implied by the step is that the two members are attached which is disclosed as described above} Regarding claim 4, Oguma further discloses: Wherein the shaft is a stationary shaft coupled to the stator {Figure 1, (43) is stationary and coupled to the rest of stator (4); [0030]} Regarding claim 5, Oguma further discloses: wherein the fan hub and the plurality of blades are die-cast to form a uniform body of the fan {[0034]. The support plate (2) and therefore plurality of blades are secured to (31) to form a uniform body. The examiner finds that die-cast is a process of forming. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, see MPEP 2113. The examiner finds that the structure implied by the step is that the fan hub and plurality of blades are connected which is taught as described above}. Regarding claim 6, Oguma further discloses: wherein fan is press-fit or over molded to the rotor {[0034]. (31) and therefore (2) is attached to the rotor (32); [0030]. The examiner finds that press-fit or over molded is a process of securing. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, see MPEP 2113. The examiner finds that the structure implied by the step is that the fan and rotor are connected which is taught as described above}. Regarding claim 7, Oguma further discloses: wherein the plurality of blades are over molded or injection molded about the fan hub {[0029]; (10) are fixed relative to (2) and (3). The examiner finds that molded or injection molded is a process of making. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, see MPEP 2113. The examiner finds that the structure implied by the step is that the fan and rotor are connected which is taught as described above}. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m. 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 Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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. /MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745 Application/Control Number: 19/212,932 Page 2 Art Unit: 3745 Application/Control Number: 19/212,932 Page 3 Art Unit: 3745 Application/Control Number: 19/212,932 Page 4 Art Unit: 3745 Application/Control Number: 19/212,932 Page 5 Art Unit: 3745 Application/Control Number: 19/212,932 Page 6 Art Unit: 3745 Application/Control Number: 19/212,932 Page 7 Art Unit: 3745
Prosecution Insights