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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 February 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 9-12 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 11 and 12 are new. Claims 6 and 8 have been cancelled.
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:
The recited first fixing assembly for fixing the torque transmission part to the bladed member claims 1 and 10.
The recited second fixing assembly for fixing the torque transmission part to the electric motor in claims 1 and 10.1
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 § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linnenbrock et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0183417) in view of Heob et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3644066).
Regarding claim 1, Linnenbrock discloses a ventilation device (FIG.’s 3-12, Abstract) for a cooling module for a motor vehicle (Id., “cooling fan for a motor vehicle”), comprising:
a bladed member 26 (FIG. 6);
an electric motor 30 (FIG. 13, para. 0032);
a torque transmission part 100, 200 (FIG. 13, para. 0036, bayonet connection elements 100, 200 and associated structure of hub 22 and rotor 10) arranged so as to transmit a torque developed by the electric motor 30 toward the bladed member 26;
the torque transmission part 100, 200 including:
a first fixing assembly 20, 22 (para. 0033) for fixing the torque transmission part to the bladed member 26, and
a second fixing assembly 10, 13, 14 (FIG. 13, para. 0033) for fixing the torque transmission part to the electric motor 30 (as shown, structure forming equivalent to the recited second fixing assembly structures disclosed in Applicant’s specification),
wherein the first fixing assembly 20, 22 and the second fixing assembly 10, 13, 14 are at different distances from an axis of rotation of the electric motor 30 (as, shown since each is spaced at a different radial distance from a central axis); and
wherein the first fixing assembly 10, 13, 14 has a snap-fastening element 220, 232 (FIG. 6, para. 0035, formed by snap-in hooks 220 and securing pins 222 forming bayonet connection) for locking the rotation of the bladed member 26 (FIG.’s 9-12, para. 0037, describing rotational engagement of the bayonet connection).
Linnenbrock is silent as to the second fixing assembly has at least one orifice arranged to receive at least one screw which is to be screwed to the electric motor. However, it is common to use screws for connecting a fan hub to a motor rotor. To this point, Heob teaches a fan hub 82 connected to a motor rotor 60 using screws 88 (FIG. 6, col. 3, ll. 11-20) through orifices in the fan hub __considered analogous to the recited second fixing assembly in this instance. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide an orifice and screw to connect the fixing assembly to the electric motor to securely fasten the components together for further assembly as demonstrated by Heob.
As to claim 4, Linnenbrock further discloses the first fixing assembly 20, 22 as a recessed central column 22 (FIG. 6, inner wall 22 forms a recessed central column under broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) positioned in the center of the torque transmission part (as shown).
As to claim 5, Linnebrock further discloses the bladed member 26 has a first retaining tab 200, 210 (FIG.’s 2-3, para. 0032, connecting device hooks 210 forming recited retaining tab) arranged to interact with the first fixing assembly 10, 13, 14.
As to claim 7, Linnenbrock further discloses the bladed member 26 has a base 14 (surface opposing element 13 shown best in FIG. 13).
As to claim 9, Linnenbrock further discloses the electric motor 30 has a stator and a rotor 10 (para. 0032, electric motors inherently have a stator or non-rotating part of the motor that drives the rotor).
As to claim 10, Linnenbrock et al. discloses a method for assembling a ventilation device for a cooling module for a motor vehicle (FIG.’s 2-13, Abstract) including:
a bladed member 26 (FIG. 6) with a guide pad (upper end surface 14 of hub 22 proximate elements 200,232),
an electric motor 30 (FIG. 13, para. 0032),
a torque transmission part 100, 200 (FIG. 13, para. 0036, bayonet connection elements 100, 200 and associated structure of hub 22 and rotor 10) arranged so as to transmit a torque developed by the electric motor 30 toward the bladed member 26;
the torque transmission part including:
a first fixing assembly 20, 22 (para. 0033) for fixing the torque transmission part to the bladed member 26, with a recessed central column (inside hub 22 walls, forming equivalent to the recited first fixing assembly structures disclosed in Applicant’s specification) positioned in the center of the torque transmission part and adapted for snap-fastening (para. 0035, via snap-in hooks 220 and pins 232 of the bayonet connection) with the guide pad of the bladed member (FIG. 13 as shown), and
a second fixing assembly 13, 14 (FIG. 13, para. 0033) for fixing the torque transmission part to the electric motor 30 (as shown, structure forming equivalent to the recited second fixing assembly structures disclosed in Applicant’s specification), said method comprising:
inserting the guide pad 14 of the bladed member 26 into the recessed central column of the torque transmission part (FIG. 13, para. 0037, snap-in elements 220, 232 on surface 14 inserted into area forming recessed central column between walls 22);
locking the bladed member on the torque transmission part by way of performing a rotational movement until snap-fastening occurs (FIG.’s 9-12, para.’s 0035-0037, detailing rotational engagement of bayonet connection using snap-fastening elements 220, 232 securing fan 20 to rotor 10),
wherein the first fixing assembly 20, 22 and the second fixing assembly 10, 13, 14 are at different distances from an axis of rotation of the electric motor 30 (as, shown since each is spaced at a different radial distance from a central axis); and
wherein the first fixing assembly 10, 13, 14 has a snap-fastening element 220, 232 (FIG. 6, para. 0035, formed by snap-in hooks 220 and securing pins 222 forming bayonet connection) for locking the rotation of the bladed member 26 (FIG.’s 9-12, para. 0037, describing rotational engagement of the bayonet connection).
Linnenbrock is silent as to the second fixing assembly has at least one orifice arranged to receive at least one screw which is to be screwed to the electric motor. However, it is common to use screws for connecting a fan hub to a motor rotor. To this point, Heob teaches a fan hub 82 connected to a motor rotor 60 using screws 88 (FIG. 6, col. 3, ll. 11-20) through orifices in the fan hub __considered analogous to the recited second fixing assembly in this instance. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide an orifice and screw to connect the fixing assembly to the electric motor to securely fasten the components together for further assembly as demonstrated by Heob.
Linnenbrock is further silent as to pre-assembling the torque transmission part on the electric-motor by screwing __only showing the motor 30 generically connected to the torque transmission part 13, 14 schematically (see FIG. 13). However, it is common to use screws for connecting a fan hub to a motor rotor. To this point, Heob teaches a fan hub 82 connected to a motor rotor 60 using screws 88 (FIG. 6, col. 3, ll. 11-20). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use screws to preassemble the torque transmission part on the motor in order to securely fasten the components together for further assembly as demonstrated by Heob.
As to claim 11, the applied art is silent as to the second fixing assembly has three orifices arranged to each receive a screw which is to be screwed to the electric motor. However, this is just duplicating known working elements, i. e., the orifices and screws taught by the applied art. To this point, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since the orifices/screws are used to provide secure attachment and connection of the parts, having duplicate orifices/screws would only produce an expected redundancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to duplicate the orifices/screws in order to provide redundancy and secure attachment for the assembly to the motor. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linnenbrock et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0183417) in view of Heob et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3644066) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Berling (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0193918).
As to claim 3, the applied art is discussed above but is silent as to the bladed member is a tangential blower wheel configured to create a stream of air flowing in a direction substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the electric motor. Tangential blower wheels are well known for use in centrifugal fans having an axial inlet and tangential outlet. To this point Berling teaches a ventilation device (FIG.’s 1-8, Abstract) having a bladed member 92 (FIG. 8, para.0057) configured as a tangential blower wheel configured to create a stream of air flowing in a direction substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the electric motor 94 (as shown, fan wheel 92 is depicted as a centrifugal fan impeller with an axial inlet and radial/tangential outlet). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the axial fan of Linnenbrock with a tangential blower wheel __known to provide predictable air flow performance having expected results when configured for use in application requiring axial inlet flow and tangential outlet flow as demonstrated by Berling. The use of the blower wheel of Berling in the combination of Linnenbrock and Heob is considered a simple substitution of one known fan wheel or type for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). MPEP 2143(I)B.2
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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:
With respect to claim 12, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the ventilation device of claim 1 further wherein the second fixing assembly has at least one guide finger for aligning the at least one orifice with at least one tapped thread that faces the at least one orifice.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the applied art in the manner claimed would not be reasonably foreseeable without benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated reinterpretation of the applied art to Linnenbrock in the aforesaid 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections over Berling have been withdrawn. However, Berling is now relied upon to teach the subject matter of claim 3, supra.
Applicant argues, on pp. 9-10 of the response, that “Linnenbrock describes element 20 as a fan and element 22 as a fan hub, which suggest that these elements move as a fan is understood to be a rotating component.” “That is, Linnenbrockfails to provide a means to "ensure the position is tightly maintained." See paragraph [0085] of the originally filed specification.” “Elements 10, 13 and 14 in Linnenbrock are described as a rotor, an axial portion and a radial portion, respectively.” “As described above, one would assume a rotor to rotate and not be fixed in a specific position.” “That is, Linnenbrock fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, particularly a first fixing assembly and a second fixing assembly.” This line of reasoning is not necessarily understood by the Examiner. Linnenbrock’s first fixing assembly 20, 22, a fan hub, and second fixing assembly 10, 13, 14 are configured equivalently to Applicant fixing assemblies, both rotating together with the motor rotor. In fact, Applicant’s entire torque transmission part 8, including first and second fixing assemblies, is attached to electric motor rotor 48. Therefore, both fixing assemblies rotate together with the bladed member and motor or they would not function to transmit torque in contrast to Applicant’s assertions otherwise. Applicant appears to be interpreted the term “for locking the rotation of the bladed member” as indicating that the part does not rotate.3 This argument must fail.
Applicant has not presented any substantive arguments with regard to the rejections of the dependent claims over the art of record including the combinations of proposed modification, rationale, or motivations to make those combinations. Applicant simply asserts that they are allowable for the same reasons made for the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained despite the claims being amended to recite some, but not all, of the disclosed elements of the structures performing the functions of the assemblies.
2Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
3 Upon review of the specification, the Examiner finds that the referenced rotation is during installation when the parts are rotated into engagement with each other and then locked against further rotation by the snap-fastening element (spec. p. 11, lines 10-11).