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
Applicant's election with traverse of A-I, B-I, in the reply filed on October 27, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the examiner would not be seriously burdened in examining all claims as classes allegedly associated with the other elections would have to be searched. This is not found persuasive because search is not limited to classifications and different classifications that pertain to some species and not others as present. The finding that there is a serious burden is therefore maintained as presented in the election of species requirement of August 27, 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 27, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fastener for securing the shaft to the fan hub must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 4. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the shaft is a stationary shaft coupled to the fan” and “a fastener for securing the shaft to the fan hub”. This is described in paragraph [0048] of the instant application and allegedly shown in Figure 8. The fastener (803) appears to secure unlabeled bearings to the shaft. The fastener does not appear to have any connection with the fan hub (215) itself, see also Figure 2. Since the shaft is stationary and the fan rotates, it is unclear how a fastener could secure the stationary shaft to the rotating fan hub. The fastener would be preventing the relative rotation required for the fan to operate. It is therefore unclear how the shaft is secured to the fan hub by the fastener.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 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]}.
Regarding claim 2, Oguma further discloses:
a shaft coupled to the fan and extending along a rotational axis of the fan {Figure 1 (50) is coupled to the fan via (51) 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) is coupled translationally via the bearings (52) with the shaft (50)}.
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}.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguma et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 2010023967) hereinafter Oguma in view of Tokuno (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20200208646) hereinafter Tokuno .
Regarding claim 3, Oguma discloses the fan and motor assembly of claim 2, but does not disclose:
wherein the stator is press fit onto the shaft.
Oguma additionally discloses the shaft may be press fit into the rotor via (51) {Figure 1, (50) is press fit into (51); [0032]}
Tokuno pertains to a fan and motor assembly. Tokuno teaches:
wherein the stator is press fit onto the shaft {[0033]. The stator may be a fixed shaft attached to the stator. 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 taught as described above}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shaft of Oguma be fixed to the stator rather than the rotating assembly as taught by Tokuno. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the two configurations are recognized as substitutes {Tokuno [0033]}.
The combination of Oguma and Tokuno therefore teaches:
wherein the stator is press fit onto the shaft {Tokuno [0033]. The stator may be a fixed shaft attached to the stator. 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 taught as described above. Additionally, Oguma teaches Figure 1, (50) is press fit into (51); [0032]}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagamatsu et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20070014675) teaches an annular flange 3215 at the base of the fan hub.
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