DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/381,293, filed on 18 October, 2023, were presented for examination, and are currently pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species 1: exemplified by figs. 2 and 5A-6B, directed to a circumferential C-shaped cuff traversing the outer perimeter of a motor. Species 1 corresponds to claims 3-5 and 14-16.
Species 2: exemplified by figs. 3A-4, directed to vertical spacers disposed in vertical slots or channels that run axially along the perimeter of a motor. Species 2 corresponds to claims 6-8 and 17-19.
The species are independent or distinct because they are not disclosed as capable of being used together. The C-shaped cuffs as shown in the drawings cover the entire inner diameter of the upper C-shaped clamp, leaving no room for the vertical to be inserted. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-2, 9-13, and 20 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the primary search fields are vast, including H02K (electric motors), F24F (air conditioners), F25B 39/04 (condensers), F04D (fans/pumps), and F16B (supports), such that manual searching of them is not possible, leading to nearly complete reliance on keywords. The F16B family has different subclasses for different types of supports, some applicable for species 1 and others applicable for species 2, with moderate overlap. Although most of the other CPC fields areas overlap, completely different sets of keywords are required to completely cover the two species.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Michael Furmanek (Reg. # 58,495) on 18 September, 2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species 1, claims 3-5 and 14-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6-8 and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 October, 2023, was filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 and 9 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 “one or more clamps having substantially equal inner dimensions”. It is noted that in the event that the spacer/adapter arrangement has only one clamp, which is within the scope of this limitation, the “equal” limitation has no basis for comparison/reference. In the event that there is only one clamp, the question becomes “equal to what?”. Further, it seems that in this context, the question would always be “equal to what?”. Even if there are two clamps, the claim is not definite enough to establish that each one’s dimension is equal to the other’s dimensions, only that their dimensions are equal to something, which is infinitely broad.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the clamps" in lines 4 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, claim 1 provides for the possibility that there is just one clamp, leaving the limitation “the clamps” without antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the inner dimensions" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, claim 1 provides for the possibility that there is just one clamp, leaving the limitation “the clamps” without antecedent basis.
Claims 3-5 and 9 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crawford (US 4,759,526 A).
With respect to claim 1, Crawford teaches a motor mount spacer/adapter arrangement, comprising:
a wire cage [combined wire hoops 24 and mounting arms 26] including one or more clamps [mounting band 20] (see joint annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 11 attached below) having substantially equal inner dimensions (see rejection of this limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – in this interpretation the Examiner will interpret both hoops 24 as part of a single clamp and the “equal” to mean that the band 20 has the same dimensions as itself), and
PNG
media_image1.png
513
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one spacer/adapter [adaptor 10] disposed adjacent the inner dimension of one of the clamps [20], wherein the one or more clamps [20] is configured to secure an electric motor [dynamoelectric machine 14] in the wire cage [24/26] (see also col. 2, lines 28-56), the electric motor [14] having a lower body portion (portions labeled in fig. 1 excerpt) of a first dimension and an upper body portion of a second dimension that is different than the first dimension (the lower body portion is so much broader and longer than the upper that this won’t be labeled), the at least one spacer/adapter [10] configured to reside between one of the clamps [20] and one of the upper and lower body portions of the electric motor [14] (it is between the clamp and the lower body portion, but the upper/lower labels could be switched in which case it would be between the clamp and the upper body portion, since the claim makes no distinction).
With respect to claim 2/1, Crawford teaches the arrangement of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the one or more clamps [20] comprise a C-shaped clamp (the gap in the clamp 20 by the bolt 22 makes it C-shaped in its circumferential sense) and the inner dimensions comprise inner diameters (see excerpts of figs. 1 and 11 above).
With respect to claim 3/1, Crawford teaches the arrangement of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one spacer/adapter [10] comprises a C-shaped cuff (in the joint annotated excerpts of figs. 2-3, attached below, the Examiner has rotated the spacer/adapter 10 in fig. 3 so that the sides 40 are on the top and bottom and the base portion 38 is on the left-hand side, such that the C-shape is clear to an observer).
PNG
media_image2.png
188
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4/3/1, Crawford teaches the arrangement of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the C-shaped cuff [10] comprises one or more upper flanges [tab 32] for engaging an upper end surface (labeled in the new annotated fig. 1 excerpt below) of the motor [14] or one of the C-shaped clamps.
PNG
media_image3.png
640
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9/1, Crawford teaches the arrangement of claim 1, further comprising an electric motor [14] disposed in the one or more clamps [20] (see col. 2, lines 30-41).
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mechalas (US 5,069,415 A, provided in the IDS filed 10/20/2023).
With respect to claim 1, Mechalas teaches a motor mount spacer/adapter arrangement [assembly 10], comprising:
a wire cage [combined wire hoops 12 and 13 and bracket members 20] including one or more clamps [circular band 11] (see col. 4, lines 39-53, and joint annotated excerpts of figs. 1, 4, and 5 attached below) having substantially equal inner dimensions (see rejection of this limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – in this interpretation the Examiner will interpret both hoops 12/13 as part of a single clamp and the “equal” to mean that the band 11 has the same dimensions as itself – however, the two hoops 12/13 could be interpreted as two different clamps in another broadest reasonable interpretation), and
PNG
media_image4.png
313
864
media_image4.png
Greyscale
at least one spacer/adapter [bracket member 20] disposed adjacent the inner dimension of one of the clamps [11], wherein the one or more clamps [11/12/13] is configured to secure an electric motor [motor 15 having housing 14] in the wire cage [12/13/20] (see also col. 4, lines 54-66), the electric motor [14] having a lower body portion (portions labeled in fig. 5 excerpt) of a first dimension and an upper body portion of a second dimension that is different than the first dimension (the upper body portion is so much broader and longer than the lower that this won’t be labeled), the at least one spacer/adapter [20] configured to reside between one of the clamps [11/12/13] and one of the upper and lower body portions of the electric motor [15] (leg portion 21 of spacer adapter 20 is between the clamp and the upper body portion – see fig. 5 excerpt – but the labels could be switched in which case it would be between the clamp and the upper body portion, since the claim makes no distinction).
With respect to claim 2/1, Mechalas teaches the arrangement of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the one or more clamps [11] comprise a C-shaped clamp (the gap in the clamp 11 by the bolt 18 makes it C-shaped in its circumferential sense – see fig. 4 excerpt above) and the inner dimensions comprise inner diameters (see excerpts of figs. 1, 4, and 5 above).
With respect to claim 3/1, Mechalas teaches the arrangement of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one spacer/adapter [20] comprises a C-shaped cuff (the leg 21 has a C-shape – the Examiner has drawn a C-shaped profile, gray-colored, in a blown-up snapshot of fig. 1 attached below, which the leg 21 of the adapter 20 adheres to in a general sense – it is noted that the leg is also C-shaped on its curved inner diameter surface where it contacts the cylindrical motor).
PNG
media_image5.png
257
916
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4/3/1, Mechalas teaches the arrangement of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the C-shaped cuff [leg 21] comprises one or more upper flanges [tabs 29] for engaging an upper end surface of the motor or one of the C-shaped clamps [11/12/13] (see enlarged fig. 5 segment attached above).
With respect to claim 5/4/3/1, Mechalas teaches the arrangement of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the one or more upper flanges [29] comprises a return flange (labeled by the Examiner in the new enlarged partial excerpt of fig. 5 attached below) for engaging one of the C-shaped clamps [11/12/13] such that the one or more upper flanges [29] comprises an upside-down U-shaped cross-section (also drawn in profile and labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 5 excerpt below).
PNG
media_image6.png
273
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Mechalas teaches the arrangement of claim 1, and further teaches an electric motor [15] disposed in the one or more clamps [11/12/13] (see figs. 4 and 5 and col. 4, lines 39-53).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halabi (US 2016/0238048 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Halabi teaches a multi-dimension motor mount spacer/adapter arrangement, comprising:
a wire cage [alignment device 100] including:
a first clamp [bracing sleeve 102] having a first clamp inner dimension and a first clamp working dimension (see the annotated excerpt of fig. 2 attached below, wherein the Examiner has drawn and labeled the dimensions, specifically radii which are each half a radius), and
a second clamp [bolting ring 130] having a second clamp inner dimension and a second clamp working dimension (it is noted that the axis shown in fig. 2 was not drawn by the Examiner, but the arrows were),
PNG
media_image7.png
395
763
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the first clamp working dimension being less than the first clamp inner dimension and the second clamp inner dimension (the first clamp working dimension is the inside radius of the grip pad 118 which is nested concentrically inside the first clamp 102, making the former’s inner radius necessarily smaller than the latter’s, while the latter’s is substantially equal to the second clamp inner dimension),
the second clamp working dimension substantially equal to the first clamp inner dimension and the second clamp inner dimension (the dimensions are not explicitly disclosed and no figure in the reference shows them in any way to compare them – although it cannot be definitively established that they are precisely equal, there is enough evidence from figs. 1-2 and 4 to show that they are substantially equal – it is noted that due to the adjustable nature of the clamps of the instant application, they are also not going to be of exactly equal dimensions, only substantially equal),
wherein the first and second clamps are configured to secure an electric motor in the cage [100], the electric motor having a first body portion (for instance something corresponding to element 205 in figs. 3-4) of a first dimension substantially equal to the first clamp working dimension and a second body portion (for instance corresponding to element 201 in figs. 3-4, see excerpts below) of a second dimension that is substantially equal to the second clamp working dimension (the first and second clamps are configured to secure such an electric motor in the cage, especially if the electric motor is shaped generally like a portion of element 200 in figs. 3-4 – in other words, the “configured to” limitation, although not being ignored, is only given patentable weight here as intended use – any simple cylindrical clamping arrangement could easily be used to clamp another cylindrical body of similar dimensions, and is thereby “configured to” do so).
PNG
media_image8.png
590
729
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11/10, Halabi teaches the arrangement of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the first clamp [102] includes a spacer/adapter [combined grip pad 118 and inner ring 126] disposed adjacent the first clamp inner dimension, the spacer/adapter [118/126] defining the first clamp working dimension (see ¶ 0020).
PNG
media_image9.png
155
446
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12/10, Halabi teaches the arrangement of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the first clamp [102] is an upper clamp and the second clamp [130] is a lower clamp (see fig. 2 excerpt from the rejection of claim 10 above and also the rejection of claim 13 below).
With respect to claim 13/10, Halabi teaches the arrangement of claim 10, and further teaches wherein each of the first and second clamps [102/130] each comprises a C-shaped clamp and the first and second clamp inner dimensions comprise inner diameters (C-shapes are labeled in the new annotated fig. 2 excerpt attached below – although the Examiner has labeled the inner dimensions as radii, to keep the excerpts clear of extraneous lines, the diameters correspond to the radii as extending all the way across the clamps).
PNG
media_image10.png
388
764
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14/11/10, Halabi teaches the arrangement of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the spacer/adapter [118/126] comprises a C-shaped cuff (C-shape is labeled in the annotated fig. 2 excerpt attached above).
With respect to claim 15/14/11/10, Halabi teaches the arrangement of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the C-shaped cuff [118/126] comprises one or more upper flanges for engaging an upper end surface of the motor or one of the C-shaped clamps.
PNG
media_image11.png
423
789
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 20 are 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 an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
With respect to claim 16, the prior art does not teach or suggest, inter alia, a multi-dimension motor mount spacer/adapter arrangement, comprising:
a wire cage including:
a first clamp having a first clamp inner dimension and a first clamp working dimension, and
a second clamp having a second clamp inner dimension and a second clamp working dimension,
the first clamp working dimension being less than the first clamp inner dimension and the second clamp inner dimension,
the second clamp working dimension substantially equal to the first clamp inner dimension and the second clamp inner dimension,
wherein the first and second clamps are configured to secure an electric motor in the cage, the electric motor having a first body portion of a first dimension substantially equal to the first clamp working dimension and a second body portion of a second dimension that is substantially equal to the second clamp working dimension;
wherein the spacer/adapter comprises a C-shaped cuff;
wherein the C-shaped cuff comprises one or more upper flanges for engaging an upper end surface of the motor or one of the C-shaped clamps;
wherein the one or more upper flanges comprises a return flange for engaging one of the C-shaped clamps such that the one or more upper flanges comprises an upside down U-shaped cross-section.
Halabi teaches all of the claim up to the upper flange(s). However, Halabi does not teach the return flange engaging one of the C-shaped clamps. Even if an argument could be made that there is a prima facie case to modify Halabi with a reference teaching a return flange, it cannot be argued that doing so would be obvious to do so and that the upper flange also comprised an upside-down U-shape.
Fig. 5 of US 2004/0208757 A1, shown and briefly discussed in the conclusion below, offers an example of what such a return flange would look like. However, US 2004/0208757 A1 is a clamp for a fan motor, while Halabi is a generic bracket for a drive coupling. The references, other than being clamps, are not analogous and the combination would not be functional, borrowing a feature from one area and placing it into a different area in a completely different type of clamp. None of the art of record teaches a return flange that would be combinable with Halabi’s C-shaped cuff in any prima facie obvious way.
With respect to claim 20, the prior art does not teach or suggest, inter alia, a multi-dimension motor mount spacer/adapter arrangement, comprising:
a wire cage including:
a first clamp having a first clamp inner dimension and a first clamp working dimension, and
a second clamp having a second clamp inner dimension and a second clamp working dimension,
the first clamp working dimension being less than the first clamp inner dimension and the second clamp inner dimension,
the second clamp working dimension substantially equal to the first clamp inner dimension and the second clamp inner dimension,
wherein the first and second clamps are configured to secure an electric motor in the cage, the electric motor having a first body portion of a first dimension substantially equal to the first clamp working dimension and a second body portion of a second dimension that is substantially equal to the second clamp working dimension;
further comprising an electric motor disposed in the first and second clamps.
Although Halabi teaches a spacer/adapter arrangement that is configured to secure an electric motor in the cage, actually disposing an electric motor in the first and second clamps of Halabi creates an arrangement that is not disclosed by, nor suggested by, Halabi. Hundreds of clamp arrangements for holding motors in this way have been reviewed by the Examiner, dozens of those have been cited herein. None teach the arrangement of claim 10. Of the extant art that teaches claim 10, only Halabi does, and Halabi is not directed to using its first and second clamps to hold a motor, not by suggestion nor insinuation. It is also considered unreasonable by the Examiner to modify the various references for holding motors, cited herein or provided in the IDS, with the relevant features of Halabi, as to do so would require something other than routine skill in the art, and there just does not seem to be any motivation for doing so based on the record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fig. 5 of US 2004/0208757 A1 shows a C-shaped clamp with a C-shaped cuff having an upper flange comprising a return flange [front shoulders 54] for engaging one of the C-shaped clamps.
PNG
media_image12.png
450
448
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2 and 3 of KR 200439889 Y1 show a multi-dimensional clamp for a cooling fan motor.
PNG
media_image13.png
369
412
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
323
409
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703) 756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270 - 5112. 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834