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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/04/2026. These drawings are --NOT ACCEPTABLE--.
This is because the number “5” added to the drawing filed on 05/04/2026 has no lead line, arrow, or other feature, to illustrate the particular structure of the hub-plate 5 in Fig 1, and because of this the amended drawing is not entered.
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 features:
“an annular hub-plate concentrically mounted on the hub” Claim 1; and
“an annular hub-plate concentrically mounted on the hub” Claim 16. must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In order to illustrate the hub-plate 5 concentrically mounted on the hub 3 as claimed, the drawings should illustrate element 5 being concentrically mounted to element 3.
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 Interpretation
It is noted that the language “anti-reversal device” does not invoke 112f, because the structure for performing the function – annular hub-plate, annular arrangement of a first number of teeth, and a second number of latches – is recited in the independent claims.
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.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding Claim 9: Line 1-3 states: “wherein the inner volumes comprise a mounting tab for pivotably mounting of each of the latches, the mounting tabs being parallel to a rotation axis of the fan.”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically in claim 1, Applicant has already required that the latches pivot about pins (e.g. pins 52), and as disclosed the inner volume is element 51 in Fig 3, thus it is unclear what structure corresponds to the mounting tabs recited in claim 9 that are different from the pins already recited in independent claim 1? Accordingly, for the purpose of examination the language in question will be read as: --wherein each inner volume comprises the pin a corresponding one plurality of latches
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.
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(s) 1-5, 10-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han US 2006/0284500 in view of WO 2017/107051. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of WO 2017/107051, dated 12/04/2025 in the file wrapper, is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1: Han US 2006/0284500 discloses the limitations: A ventilation fan (the ventilation fan is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
an electric motor (= 500,600,710, Fig 3) driving a rotor (730, Fig 3);
the rotor 730 having a hub 732 mounted on a drive shaft of the electric motor (i.e. mounted on drive shaft 720 via bearing 733, ¶0044, Fig 3);
a plurality of blades (240, Fig 1) mounted to the hub (Fig 1 teaches that it is known in the art to fix a plurality of fan blades 240 to the motor rotor/hub via motor shaft 230; thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have fan blades 240 (from prior art Fig 1) mounted to drive shaft 720 in order to operate a fan with the motor as known in the art; it is noted that in the combination the fan blades 240 would be mounted to the hub 732 via drive shaft 720); and
an anti-reversal device (the anti-reversal device is defined by the sum of its parts) concentrically mounted between the motor and the rotor (i.e. concentrically mounted between the part of casing 500 which has elements 750 extending therefrom and rotor 730 as seen in Fig 3), the anti-reversal device comprising:
an annular hub-plate (the annular hub-plate is defined by the sum of its parts and includes elements 760,780,781, ¶0048,¶0051, Figs 3-4) concentrically mounted on
an annular arrangement of a first number of a plurality of teeth (= annular arrangement of stationary blocks 750 shown in Fig 4, ¶0045-¶0047; first number = eight, Fig 4) provided on a stationary part of the motor (stationary part of the motor = the part of casing 500 which has elements 750 extending therefrom as seen in Figs 3-4) and concentric with the hub-plate (as understood from Figs 3-4 the teeth 750 are concentric with element 781 of the annular hub-plate);
wherein the hub-plate comprises a second number of latches (= latch 770 in Fig 5; second number = one, ¶0048-¶0053):
wherein the latch is pivotable and does not engage the annular arranged teeth if the hub is rotated in a predetermined first rotational direction (when the hub 732 is rotated in the forward direction, the latch 770 does not engage teeth 750, ¶0022, ¶0036, ¶0068-¶0069) such that the rotor, and thereby the hub and the plurality of blades, are free to rotate (when the hub-rotates in the forward direction the hub and blades 240 are free to rotate since the anti-reversal device is not engaged); and adapted to engage one of the annular arranged teeth when the latch is in a non-pivoted position (i.e. in the non-pivoted position illustrated in Fig 5 the latch 770 engages one of the teeth 750 as seen in Figs 9-11) for blocking rotation of the rotor in a second rotational direction (i.e. for blocking rotation of the rotor in the reverse direction, ¶0067), which is opposite the first rotational direction (the reverse direction is opposite to the forward direction), such that the hub, and thereby the plurality of blades, are prevented from rotating (when the hub-rotates in the reverse direction the hub and blades 240 are prevented from rotating since the anti-reversal device is engaged).
Han US 2006/0284500 is silent regarding the limitations: a second number of a plurality of latches, which are equally angularly spaced on the hub-plate, each latch having: a first end having a mounting hole whereby said first end of the latch is pivotally mounted on a pin inside the hub-plate so that the latch is pivotably mounted for pivoting about an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of the hub-plate; and a second end, wherein the latch is pivotable about the first end of the latch by swinging the second end in a radially outward direction; and an engagement hook provided at the first end of each latch and adapted to engage one of the annular arranged teeth when the latch is in a non-pivoted position for blocking rotation. The prior art of WO 2017/107051 which is directed to an anti-reversing mechanism for rotary devices (Line 1 & 11-12) like Han US 2006/0284500, is noted.
PNG
media_image1.png
359
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of WO 2017/107051 (Attached Figure A)
However, WO 2017/107051 does disclose the limitations: an anti-reversal device (the anti-reversal device is defined by the sum of its parts), the anti-reversal device comprising: an annular hub-plate (see Annotated Figure 2 of WO 2017/107051 (Attached Figure A) above); and
an annular arrangement of a first number of a plurality of teeth (annular arrangement of a first number of a plurality of teeth = teeth of ratchet 5 annularly arranged about the center as shown in Fig 2; first number =3) provided on a stationary part (stationary part = lock disc 7 fixed to housing 8, Fig 1, Line 213-215) and concentric with the hub-plate (Attached Figure A);
wherein the hub-plate comprises a second number of a plurality of latches (as understood from Figs 1-3 & Attached Figure A element 4 of the hub-plate has six latches 6; second number of a plurality of latches = 6), which are equally angularly spaced on the hub-plate (Line 200-204 of WO ‘051), each latch having:
a first end (Attached Figure A) having a mounting hole (Attached Figure A) whereby said first end of the latch is pivotally mounted on a pin inside the hub-plate (as understood from Figs 1-3 & Attached Figure A the identified first end is pivotally mounted via element 13; Line 189-198 explains that the latch is pivotally mounted on a screw 13; screw 13 corresponds to the claimed pin which the mounting hole is pivotally mounted on) so that the latch is pivotably mounted for pivoting about an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of the hub-plate (Attached Figure A; axis of rotation of the hub plate = see Attached Figure A; an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of the hub plate = axis of each screw 13 in Attached Figure A – as understood from Attached Figure A each axis is parallel to the hub-plate axis as claimed); and
a second end (Attached Figure A), wherein the latch is pivotable about the first end of the latch (as understood from Attached Figure A the latch 6 is pivotable about the identified first end in Attached Figure A) by swinging the second end in a radially outward direction (Line 217-223, Attached Figure A – as described in the passage the identified second end swings radially out due to centrifugal force; also as understood from Attached Figure A when the latch pivots as claimed, the second end swings radially out due to centrifugal force) and does not engage the annular arranged teeth if the device is rotated in a predetermined first rotational direction (Line 217-223; first rotational direction = forward direction) such that the rotor is free to rotate (Line 217-223); and
an engagement hook (Attached Figure A) provided at the first end of each latch (Attached Figure A) and adapted to engage one of the annular arranged teeth when the latch is in a non-pivoted position (i.e. position shown in Attached Figure A) for blocking rotation of the rotor in a second rotational direction (Attached Figure A, Line 223-227; second rotational direction = reverse direction), which is opposite the first rotational direction (the reverse direction is opposite to the forward direction) such that the rotor is prevented from rotating (Line 223-227).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the anti-reversal device of Han US 2006/0284500 with the anti-reversal device of WO 2017/107051 in order to provide the motor with an anti-reversal device having a simple structure that is easy to maintain (Line 45-57).
Regarding Claim 2: wherein the second end of each of the latches is provided with a mass of material (see Attached Figure A of WO ‘051).
Regarding Claim 3: wherein the latches are curved between the first end and the second end (see Attached Figure A of WO ‘051).
Regarding Claim 4: It is within the general skill level to change the shape of the latches such that the curvature of the latches matches a circumferential position of the hub-plate in order to reduce the complexity of the anti-reverse rotation device taught by the combination of prior art. Accordingly, the prior art makes obvious the limitations: “wherein the curvature of the latches matches a circumferential position in the hub-plate” as recited in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5: wherein the latches are each formed in one piece with uniform thickness in an axial direction of the ventilation fan (as understood from Attached Figure A & Figs 1-3 of WO ‘051 each of the latches 6 in Fig 1 has a uniform thickness in the axial direction; thus in the combination of art there would be a uniform thickness of the latches in an axial direction of the fan as claimed).
Regarding Claim 10: wherein the latches are pivotably mounted and are exclusively pivotable due to rotation of the hub plate (given that the mechanism of WO ‘051 only causes pivoting (inward or outward) when the hub plate is rotated; put another way if the mechanism of WO ‘051 is stationary the latches 6 of WO ‘051 are not going to pivot, and the latches are only able to pivot (inward or outward) when the hub plate has been rotated in some manner (e.g. due to rotation of the hub plate)).
Regarding Claim 11: Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein the first number of teeth provided in the annular arrangement is nine and the nine teeth form an open ring of separate teeth”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the annular arrangement of the first number of teeth to be nine separate teeth that form an open ring--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the first number of teeth provided in the annular arrangement is nine and the nine teeth form an open ring of separate teeth versus the design taught by Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the first number of teeth provided in the annular arrangement is nine and the nine teeth form an open ring of separate teeth and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0019 of the SPEC indicates that the arrangement of the teeth is chosen to ensure that the latch engages the teeth during operation of the device (e.g. like the pawl 6 of WO ‘051 which engages the teeth of ratchet 5 of WO ‘051 in the combination of Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051). Thus, when the annular arrangement of the first number of teeth is designed to be an open ring of nine separate teeth the pawl 6 of WO ‘051 which engages the teeth of ratchet 5 of WO ‘051 in the combination of Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of ensuring that the latch engages the teeth during operation of the device.
Regarding Claim 13: wherein the ventilation fan is an axial flow fan (given the arrangement of the plurality of blades 240 of the fan of Han, the fan is capable of moving air axially and thus is an axial flow fan as claimed).
Regarding Claim 14: wherein the electric motor is a permanent magnet electric motor (Han - ¶0044 – element 731 of the motor is a permanent magnet).
Regarding Claim 15: Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 discloses the claimed invention except for "wherein the motor of the fan is mounted predominantly horizontally". It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have such a rearrangement of how the motor of the fan is mounted as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular horizontal arrangement of the motor of the fan is significant. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 16: Han US 2006/0284500 discloses the limitations: An anti-reversal device (the anti-reversal device is defined by the sum of its parts) for a ventilation fan (the ventilation fan is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising an electric motor (= 500,600,710, Fig 3) driving a rotor (730, Fig 3), the rotor 730 having a hub 732 and mounted on a drive shaft of the motor (i.e. mounted on drive shaft 720 via bearing 733, ¶0044, Fig 3), and wherein the anti-reversal device is concentrically mounted between the motor and the rotor (i.e. concentrically mounted between the part of casing 500 which elements 750 extend from & rotor 730 as shown in Fig 3), the anti-reversal device comprising:
an annular hub-plate (the annular hub-plate is defined by the sum of its parts and includes elements 760,780,781, ¶0048,¶0051, Figs 3-4) concentrically mounted on the hub (as understood from ¶0051 & Figs 3-4 the hub plate is fixed to hub 732); and
an annular arrangement of a first number of a plurality of teeth (= annular arrangement of stationary blocks 750 shown in Fig 4, ¶0045-¶0047; first number = eight, Fig 4) provided on a stationary part of the motor (stationary part of the motor = the part of casing 500 which has elements 750 extending therefrom as seen in Figs 3-4) and concentric with the hub-plate (as understood from Figs 3-4 the teeth 750 are concentric with element 781 of the annular hub-plate);
wherein the hub-plate comprises a second number of latches (= latch 770 in Fig 5; second number = one, ¶0048-¶0053):
wherein the latch is pivotable and does not engage the annular arranged teeth if the hub is rotated in a predetermined first rotational direction (when the hub 732 is rotated in the forward direction, the latch 770 does not engage teeth 750, ¶0022, ¶0036, ¶0068-¶0069) such that the rotor, and thereby the hub and the plurality of blades, are free to rotate (when the hub-rotates in the forward direction the hub and blades 240 are free to rotate since the anti-reversal device is not engaged); and adapted to engage one of the annular arranged teeth when the latch is in a non-pivoted position (i.e. in the non-pivoted position illustrated in Fig 5 the latch 770 engages one of the teeth 750 as seen in Figs 9-11) for blocking rotation of the rotor in a second rotational direction (i.e. for blocking rotation of the rotor in the reverse direction, ¶0067), which is opposite the first rotational direction (the reverse direction is opposite to the forward direction), such that the hub, and thereby the plurality of blades, are prevented from rotating (when the hub-rotates in the reverse direction the hub and blades 240 are prevented from rotating since the anti-reversal device is engaged). Han US 2006/0284500 is silent regarding the limitations: a second number of a plurality of latches, which are equally angularly spaced on the hub-plate, each latch having: a first end having a mounting hole whereby said first end of the latch is pivotally mounted on a pin inside the hub-plate so that the latch is pivotably mounted for pivoting about an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of the hub-plate; and a second end, wherein the latch is pivotable about the first end of the latch by swinging the second end in a radially outward direction; and an engagement hook provided at the first end of each latch and adapted to engage one of the annular arranged teeth when the latch is in a non-pivoted position for blocking rotation. The prior art of WO 2017/107051 which is directed to an anti-reversing mechanism for rotary devices (Line 1 & 11-12) like Han US 2006/0284500, is noted.
However, WO 2017/107051 does disclose the limitations: an anti-reversal device (the anti-reversal device is defined by the sum of its parts), the anti-reversal device comprising: an annular hub-plate (see Annotated Figure 2 of WO 2017/107051 (Attached Figure A) above); and
an annular arrangement of a first number of a plurality of teeth (annular arrangement of a first number of a plurality of teeth = teeth of ratchet 5 annularly arranged about the center as shown in Fig 2; first number =3) provided on a stationary part (stationary part = lock disc 7 fixed to housing 8, Fig 1, Line 213-215) and concentric with the hub-plate (Attached Figure A);
wherein the hub-plate comprises a second number of a plurality of latches (as understood from Figs 1-3 & Attached Figure A element 4 of the hub-plate has six latches 6; second number of a plurality of latches = 6), which are equally angularly spaced on the hub-plate (Line 200-204 of WO ‘051), each latch having:
a first end (Attached Figure A) having a mounting hole (Attached Figure A) whereby said first end of the latch is pivotally mounted on a pin inside the hub-plate (as understood from Figs 1-3 & Attached Figure A the identified first end is pivotally mounted via element 13; Line 189-198 explains that the latch is pivotally mounted on a screw 13; screw 13 corresponds to the claimed pin which the mounting hole is pivotally mounted on) so that the latch is pivotably mounted for pivoting about an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of the hub-plate (Attached Figure A; axis of rotation of the hub plate = see Attached Figure A; an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of the hub plate = axis of each screw 13 in Attached Figure A – as understood from Attached Figure A each axis is parallel to the hub-plate axis as claimed); and
a second end (Attached Figure A), wherein the latch is pivotable about the first end of the latch (as understood from Attached Figure A the latch 6 is pivotable about the identified first end in Attached Figure A) by swinging the second end in a radially outward direction (Line 217-223, Attached Figure A – as described in the passage the identified second end swings radially out due to centrifugal force; also as understood from Attached Figure A when the latch pivots as claimed, the second end swings radially out due to centrifugal force) and does not engage the annular arranged teeth if the device is rotated in a predetermined first rotational direction (Line 217-223; first rotational direction = forward direction) such that the rotor is free to rotate (Line 217-223); and
an engagement hook (Attached Figure A) provided at the first end of each latch (Attached Figure A) and adapted to engage one of the annular arranged teeth when the latch is in a non-pivoted position (i.e. position shown in Attached Figure A) for blocking rotation of the rotor in a second rotational direction (Attached Figure A, Line 223-227; second rotational direction = reverse direction), which is opposite the first rotational direction (the reverse direction is opposite to the forward direction) such that the rotor is prevented from rotating (Line 223-227).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the anti-reversal device of Han US 2006/0284500 with the anti-reversal device of WO 2017/107051 in order to provide the motor with an anti-reversal device having a simple structure that is easy to maintain (Line 45-57).
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han US 2006/0284500 in view of WO 2017/107051 as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Tsao US 2013/0220760.
Regarding Claim 12: Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, WO 2017/107051 discloses the limitations: wherein N1 is the first number of teeth (N1 = 3, the first number of teeth is 3) and N2 is the second number of latches (N2 = 6, the second number of latches is 6). Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 does not disclose the limitations: N1 is higher than N2, and N1/N2 is a non-integer number.
PNG
media_image2.png
602
976
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Tsao US 2013/0220760 (Attached Figure F)
However Tsao US 2013/0220760, which is directed to a ratchet braking structure, does disclose the limitations:
an annular arrangement of a first number of teeth (i.e. annular arrangement of 17 teeth on ratchet wheel 91; first number = 17); a second number of latches (i.e. two latches 92; second number = 2); wherein N1 is the first number of teeth (N1 is 17, N1 is an odd number, ¶0004-¶0005) and N2 is the second number of latches (N2 is 2, N2 is an even number, ¶0004-¶0005), N1 is higher than N2 (it is, 17 is higher than 2), and N1/N2 is a non-integer number (it is, 17/2 is 8.5 which is not a whole number (i.e. 8.5 is a non-integer number)).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anti-rotation device of Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 with the teaching of providing an odd number of ratchet teeth (e.g. 17 teeth) & an even number of latches (e.g. 2 latches) as taught (¶0004-¶0005) by Tsao US 2013/0220760 in order to ensure operational safety of the device the ratchet braking structure is applied to (title, ¶0001-¶0005).
Regarding Claim 17: Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 16. Additionally, WO 2017/107051 discloses the limitations: wherein the second number of latches are provided in an annular concentric configuration (as seen in Attached Figure A the second number of latches 6 are arranged annularly as claimed), wherein N1 is the first number of teeth (N1 = 3, the first number of teeth is 3) and N2 is the second number of latches (N2 = 6, the second number of latches is 6). Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 does not disclose the limitations: N1 is higher than N2, and N1/N2 is a non-integer number.
However Tsao US 2013/0220760, which is directed to a ratchet braking structure, does disclose the limitations:
an annular arrangement of a first number of teeth (i.e. annular arrangement of 17 teeth on ratchet wheel 91; first number = 17); a second number of latches (i.e. two latches 92; second number = 2); wherein N1 is the first number of teeth (N1 is 17, N1 is an odd number, ¶0004-¶0005) and N2 is the second number of latches (N2 is 2, N2 is an even number, ¶0004-¶0005), N1 is higher than N2 (it is, 17 is higher than 2), and N1/N2 is a non-integer number (it is, 17/2 is 8.5 which is not a whole number (i.e. 8.5 is a non-integer number)).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anti-rotation device of Han US 2006/0284500 as modified by WO 2017/107051 with the teaching of providing an odd number of ratchet teeth (e.g. 17 teeth) & an even number of latches (e.g. 2 latches) as taught (¶0004-¶0005) by Tsao US 2013/0220760 in order to ensure operational safety of the device the ratchet braking structure is applied to (title, ¶0001-¶0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 8 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.
Regarding claim 8: The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 8 including “wherein the hub-plate is provided with a plurality of inner volumes such that the second number of latches are accommodated in the inner volumes and wherein the latches pivot”. As disclosed by Applicant, “at higher speeds the latches 7 are forced outwards, whereby they are freed from the teeth 8 but held in place by the outer perimeter of the inner volume 51 of the hub-plate 5 so that the latches 7 will be ready to engage again once the rotation stops. This arrangement is advantageous a sit ensures that any speed above idling the anti-reversal unit is 100% free.”
It is the Examiner’s position that modification of the available prior art in the claimed manner is neither contemplated nor foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention. Additionally, Claim 9 would be allowable based on its dependency on claim 8, if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as set forth in this Office action.
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. 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). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7 ¶3-Page 8 ¶1: Applicant traverses the drawing objections, without explaining what their traversal is, and states that they have added the number 5 to Fig 1 of the instant application.
--Applicants remarks fail to convince the examiner to withdraw the drawing objection. The examiner notes that the number “5” added to the drawing filed on 05/04/2026 has no lead line, arrow, or other feature, to illustrate the particular structure of the hub-plate 5 in Fig 1. Thus this addition fails to illustrate how the hub plate 5 is concentrically mounted on the hub 3 as claimed. Accordingly, the drawing objection to clam 1 & claim 16 is maintained. Also, 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a) each require a specific traversal which explains why the particular objection is not complied with. Applicant has failed to provide such an explanation. Accordingly, Applicants arguments directed to the drawing objections are not convincing.--.
Page 8 ¶4-Page 10 ¶2 (specifically Page 9 last three lines – Page 10 ¶1): Applicant argues that Han in view of WO 2017/107051 does not make obvious the language of claims 1 & 16 because they believe that WO ‘051 fails to teach a first end having a mounting hole whereby said first end of the latch is pivotably mounted on a pin inside the hub-plate so that the latch is pivotably mounted for pivoting about an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of the hub-plate and an engagement hook provided at the first end of each latch and adapted to engage one of the annular arranged teeth when the latch is in a non-pivoted position for blocking rotation of the rotor in a second rotational direction, which is opposite the first rotational direction, such that the hub, and thereby the plurality of blades, are prevented from rotating as claimed.
--Examiner disagrees. As explained in the rejection above, the prior art suggests the language claimed. Additionally, the examiner notes that the claim language is broad, and the manner in which the independent claims are constructed does not preclude the claim language from being rejected with the prior art of Han in view of WO 2017/107051.
This is partly because, in the prior art of WO ‘051 the screws 13 correspond to the pins which are claimed. Furthermore, the manner in which the latches are claimed does not preclude the broad interpretation of the latches of WO ‘051 from being applied to the claim in the manner explained by the examiner in the rejections above. Accordingly, there is no particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed structural difference between the prior art of Han in view of WO 2017/107051 and the instant application, captured in the language of the independent claims being argued.
Accordingly, Applicants arguments do not convince the examiner that the independent claims are allowable over the prior art. Accordingly, the rejections of independent claims 1 & 16 are maintained.--.
Page 10 ¶2: Applicant traverses the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 & 17 based entirely on the arguments discussed above with respect to claim(s) 1 & 16.
--Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Applicant makes no new arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 & 17. Thus applicants arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons already discussed above.--
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights