DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 14-15, 18-19 and 21 are pending and currently being examined.
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 § 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 21 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.
In Re Claim 22, this claim recites the limitation “the rotor assembly” in Line 1 and again in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --the rotor-- will be assumed instead.
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 – 7, 14, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentile (US Patent 11,637,477 B2) as evidenced by Moody (US Patent 6,247,894 B1) in view of Brown (US Patent 0,653,906 A).
In Re Claim 1, Gentile discloses a ceiling fan (Column 6, Lines 47 – 60; Figure 1) comprising: a motor having a rotor housing (105) and a stator housing (140, 145, 150) which collectively define an outer periphery of the motor (i.e. border of structure shown in Figure 1); a stationary motor shaft (170; Figure 4) carried by the stator housing (140, 145, 150); a stator (at least element 155 and other known elements that define 130) located within the outer periphery, circumscribing the motor shaft (170), and carried by the stator housing (140, 145, 150); a rotor (120, 125) located within the outer periphery, circumscribing the motor shaft (170), and carried by the rotor housing (105); a bearing assembly (180, 190) at least partially located within the outer periphery and rotationally coupling the rotor housing (150) to the motor shaft (170); and at least one blade (Column 6, Lines 51 – 60) mounted to the rotor housing (105); a downrod (“shaft or shaft-like device” – Column 5, Lines 28 – 31; it typically has power wires as known in the art); a connection (the implied connection/coupling between the shaft-like device and the bore 160) coupling the stationary motor shaft (170) to the downrod (“stator bore 160 can be configured to receive a shaft or shaft-like device” – Column 5, Lines 28 – 31; Note that it is known in the art to directly connect a downrod to a stator/stationary motor shaft as evidenced by Moody’s downrod and stator/stationary motor shaft (20) in Figure 4 and Column 3, Lines 46 – 51); wherein the stationary motor shaft (170) and the connection (implied by the disclosure of the bore 160 being configured to receive the downrod) are located completely within the vertical extent of the combination of the rotor (120, 125) and stator (at least element 155 and other known elements that define 130) as depicted.
Gentile does not explicitly disclose that the connection between the shaft like device (the claimed downrod) and the stationary motor shaft (170) is a motor adapter.
However, Figure 1 of Brown discloses a ceiling fan (Page 1, Line 23), downrod (“F” is described as a supporting pipe), and a motor adapter in the form of internal threads in a stator body (since “F” is “screwed in” – Page 1, Lines 94 – 96) of the ceiling-fan-motor (part labeled “C”) (Page 1, Lines 65 – 96; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to provide a motor adaptor in the form of internal threads in the stationary motor shaft (170) of Gentile as taught by Brown because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed connection between the shaft-like device/downrod and the stationary motor shaft of Gentile with the specifically disclosed motor adapter (internal threads) of Brown that mates with the external threads of the supporting pipe/downrod, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Gentile discloses that a stack height of the ceiling fan (Figure 1) equals a height of the motor (155, 120, 125).
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 2, and Gentile discloses that the at least one blade (Column 6, Lines 51 – 60) is located within the motor height (since they are mounted to sidewall 120).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and Gentile discloses that the rotor (120, 125) comprises a peripheral wall (125) and the at least one blade is mounted to the peripheral wall (Column 6, Lines 55 – 57).
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and the screw connection between the shaft-like device/downrod and stationary motor shaft of Brown (Page 1, Lines 94 – 96) reads on a motor adapter that is located within the outer periphery.
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, annotated Figure 1 of Brown above discloses that the internal threads of the screw connection (Page 1, Lines 94 – 96) are integrated with the motor shaft.
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 6, and Figure 1 of Brown (Page 1, Lines 94 – 96) discloses that the motor adapter comprises internal threads (since the downrod is screwed in) within a hollow of the motor shaft.
In Re Claim 14, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Gent1le discloses that the at least one blade (Column 6, Lines 51 – 60) is located within the motor height (since they are mounted to sidewall 120).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and since the internal threads modification of Brown is being made in the bore of the stationary shaft of Gentile, the motor adapter (internal threads) of Brown is located within the outer periphery of Gentile.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Gentile
In Re Claim 21, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Gentile discloses that the rotor comprises an upper vertical extent (see annotated figure above) and the stationary motor shaft (170) is located below the upper vertical extent of the rotor (see where vertical extent of the stationary motor shaft is in the above annotated figure). The adapter modification of Brown is within the hollow of the stationary motor shaft of Gentile, and is therefore also located below the upper vertical extent of the rotor
Claim(s) 8 – 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentile (US Patent 11,637,477 B2) as evidenced by Moody (US Patent 6,247,894 B1) in view of Brown (US Patent 0,653,906 A) and further in view of Horng (PG Pub US 20200173446 A1).
In Re Claims 8 – 10 and 18, Gentile and Brown discloses all the limitations of Claims 5 and 1 respectively, Gentile disclose at least one blade (Column 6, Lines 51 – 60) is located within the motor height (since they are mounted to sidewall 120), Gentile / Brown discloses a motor adapter located at least partially within the vertical extent of the rotor and stator (since the motor adapter is within the vertical extent of the combination of the rotor and stator as discussed in Claim 1), but they do not disclose a light kit.
However, Horng discloses a motor having a rotor housing (3, 34) and a stator housing (Figure 4 shows the stator housing which includes lower wall 4 and extension above the base which connects to stator 2), which collectively define an outer periphery of the motor (as depicted in Figure 3), and a light kit (4) and illumination source (42: “LED”) located within the outer periphery, within the stator housing (Figure 4 shows the stator housing which includes lower wall 4 and extension above the base which connects to stator 2), and at least partially within vertical extent of the rotor (31, 32) and stator (2) (paragraph [0059]; Figures 3, 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
630
1399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the light kit as taught by Horng within the outer periphery of the motor of Gentile / Brown for the purpose of advantageously illuminating the room that is being cooled by the ceiling fan, thus eliminating the need for installing additional lighting fixtures/outlets in the room.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentile (US Patent 11,637,477 B2) as evidenced by Moody (US Patent 6,247,894 B1) in view of Brown (US Patent 0,653,906 A) and further in view of Enomoto (PG Pub US 20080074009 A1), Niemiee (PG Pub US 20170030369 A1), and Maslov (PG Pub US 20040021437 A1).
In Re Claim 19, Gentile and Brown disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose the claimed ranges of dimensions and torque of the fan and motor.
However, Figure 7 of Enomoto discloses that for a conventional fan system, an axial dimension (claimed height of the motor) of 0.06 m (2.4 inches) the required torque is 0.8 Nm. The 2.4 inches is in the claimed range of 0.9 to 3 inches, and the 0.8 Nm is in the claimed range of 0.5 – 5 Nm.
Also however, Niemiee discloses a fan (paragraph [0031]) whose diameter is 96 inches which is in the claimed range of 30 to 96 inches.
Also however, Maslov discloses in Table 1, paragraph [0145], a conventional motor having a width (claimed motor diameter) of 239 mm (9.6 inches) which is in the claimed range of 4.8 – 14.4 inches.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to design the motor torque of Gentile / Brown to be 0.8 Nm as taught by Enomoto, and to design the height of the motor of Gentile / Brown to be 2.4 inches as taught by Enomoto, and to design the fan diameter of Gentile / Brown to be 96 inches as taught by Niemiee, and to design the motor diameter of Gentile / Brown to be 9.6 inches as taught by Maslov, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (motor / fan). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 5 of Applicant's Response that Gentile is "completely silent" regarding the stationary motor shaft.
Examiner's Response: Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). One skilled in the art would appreciate that the element (170) depicted in Figure 4 (that is being designated the "stationary motor shaft") is nearly identical to Applicant's element (387) which applicant describes as the stationary motor shaft. Note that Applicant's stationary motor shaft (387) is also a one piece integral construction with the stator (340), there is no specified boundary that separates the stationary motor shaft from the stator. Therefore it is appropriate to designate a portion of a one piece integral construction stator of Gentile as the stationary motor shaft. Element (170) of Gentile even performs the bearing(180)-mounting-function that Applicant's stationary shaft (387) does for bearing (381). In any case, the examiner contends that a claim must structurally distinguish over the prior art.
Applicant has argued on Page 5 of Applicant's Response that "Notably in Brown, the structure described by the Examiner as the stationary motor shaft extends above the upper periphery of the combination of the rotor and stator".
Examiner's Response: Applicant’s argument is moot because this office action contains new grounds of rejection. As discussed above, Gentile already discloses the claimed stationary motor shaft (170). The only teaching being relied upon in Brown is the threaded connection between mating male threads of the supporting downrod (“F”) and female threads of the ceiling-fan-motor. The female threads in this threaded connection is the claimed motor adapter. In other words, the modification being made to Gentile is simply providing mating threads to the stator/stationary shaft and the downrod.
Applicant has argued on Page 6 of Applicant's Response that "One can clearly see that there is a portion of what the Examiner asserts is the stationary motor shaft and downrod located above the upper extent of each of the rotor and stator, which necessarily means this portion is outside the claimed outer periphery of the combined rotor/stator. When this structure from Brown is combined with Gentile, it will also necessarily reside above the rotor/stator and lie outside the claimed outer periphery of the combined rotor/stator".
Examiner's Response: Applicant’s argument is moot because this office action contains new grounds of rejection. As discussed above, Gentile discloses both the downrod (Column 5, Line 19: "shaft or shaft-like device") and the stationary motor shaft (170). Gentile clearly discloses in Column 5, Lines 28 - 29 that the downrod (shaft or shaft-like device) is received within bore (160), which is the bore of the stationary motor shaft (170) as depicted in Figure 1. The only modification the examiner is making to the stationary motor shaft of Gentile is the internal female threads that enable mating connection with the male threads of the downrod that is received in its bore. In other words, the modification being made to Gentile is simply providing mating threads to the stator/stationary shaft and the downrod.
PNG
media_image3.png
752
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Gentile modified by Figure 1 of Brown
The examiner contends that the proposed modification of Brown to Gentile looks like the figure constructed above (rather than the construction proposed by applicant).
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant's Response that "Applicant understands that the Examiner may want to lower the "stationary shaft" further into the Gentile stator bore 160 to reach Applicant's claim".
Examiner's Response: Applicant’s argument is moot because this office action contains new grounds of rejection. As discussed above, Gentile discloses the claimed stationary motor shaft (170). It is not necessary to lower the stationary shaft as alleged. The modification being made to Gentile is simply providing mating threads to the stator/stationary shaft and the downrod.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746