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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The computer fans” in Paragraph [0003], Line 1 should read “Computer fans”.
“of the computers” in Paragraph [0003], Line 2 should read “of computers”.
“the computer fans; however, the” in Paragraph [0003], Line 6 should read “the computer fans. However, the” since a semicolon has already been used in this sentence.
“DIY” (Paragraph [0003]) and “LOGO” (Paragraph [0031]) should be spelled out prior to using the abbreviations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“which is characterized in that” in Claims 1-10 can be rewritten as “wherein” or a similar term.
“the said” through Claims 1-10 can be rewritten as either “the” or “said”.
“PCB” in Claim 1 should be spelled out prior to using the abbreviation.
The comma in the second-to-last line of Claim 1 should be deleted.
“to with” in Claim 8, Line 8 should read “to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hooking part” and “clamping part” in Claim 3, “limiting part” in Claim 6, “encircling part” in Claim 8, and “terracing part” in Claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 1 recites the limitations "the middle part of the frame body", “the middle part of the through channel”, “the middle part of the base”, “the upper part of the pivoting pipe”, “the inner wall of the casing body”, “the upper end of the wire-passing pipe”, and “the upper wall of the impeller shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the inner wall of the pivoting pipe", “the upper wall of the first ball bearing”, and “the outer wall of the second ball bearing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the outer wall of the lower end of the wire-passing pipe", “the diameter of the limiting part”, and “the diameter of the locating orifice”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the inner wall of the stator" and “the outer wall of the encircling part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected Claims 2 (for Claims 3-4), 1 (for Claim 5), 6 (for Claim 7), and 1 (for Claims 8 & 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections to the claims and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to disclose a computer fan with a hollow wire-passing shaft, the fan comprising a frame body, wherein the middle part of the said frame body is provided with a through channel, the middle part of the said through channel is provided with a base, the middle part of the said base is provided with a through locating orifice; and a wire-passing pipe, wherein the said wire-passing pipe is a pipe body with a wire-passing channel, the bottom of the said wire-passing pipe is installed in the locating orifice, the outer wall of the said wire-passing pipe is provided with a pivoting pipe, and the upper part of the said pivoting pipe is provided with an impeller shaft, and the said impeller shaft is extended with a bent casing body, and the said casing body and the base form a holding cavity, the said base is provided with a PCB which is provided a stator, and the said stator is arranged in the holding cavity, and the inner wall of the said casing body is provided with a rotor which matches the said stator; the upper end of the wire-passing pipe extends out of the upper wall of the impeller shaft, and is provided with a fixed seat which is provided with an LCD screen which can display predetermined patterns. Cazenave (US Publication No: 2022/0174878) discloses a fan with a fan frame and a hollow shaft (Figures 3-4); however, Cazenave fails to disclose the fan being a computer fan or a frame body or wire-passing pipe as claimed. Zhang (US Publication No: 2023/0118465) discloses a fan comprising a frame and a hollow shaft (Figure 4, No. 3); however, the fan is a ceiling fan, not a computer fan, and Zhang fails to disclose the fan comprising a frame body or wire-passing pipe as claimed. The prior art fails to disclose a computer fan as claimed; therefore, Claims 1-10 are allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Woody Lee can be reached at 571-272-1051. 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 L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745