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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20180051667).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. disclose:
A permanent magnet (pre-amble, patentable weight not given) motor to facilitate air movement through heat rejection equipment (abstract, Figs 1-3), comprising:
a body (10);
an upper bearing housing (52, Fig 2) positioned on and extending upwardly from a top surface of the body (10);
a shaft (3) connected to and extending from the upper bearing housing (52) and in communication with a fan (5);
a lower bearing housing (4) positioned on and extending downwardly from a bottom surface of the body (10) opposite the top surface; and
a mounting assembly (B, Fig 3, see annotated Fig below) having at least three discrete legs (16, Fig 2) disposed on a lower end of the body (10) and extending outwardly from the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2/1, Yang et al. disclose further comprising a water slinger (44, para 17) substantially disposed between the upper bearing housing (52) and the shaft (3).
Regarding claim 3/1, Yang et al. disclose further comprising a first plurality of fins (see annotated Fig 1 below) connected to and protruding outwardly from a surface of the body (10).
PNG
media_image2.png
642
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5/1, Yang et al. disclose wherein the mounting assembly encircles at least a portion of the lower bearing housing and extends outwardly therefrom (see annotated Fig above).
Regarding claim 6/1, Yang et al. disclose wherein at least two of the three discrete legs are positioned on opposing sides of the body, and each of the three discrete legs is oriented in alignment with the shaft (Figs 1-3).
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by McElveen et al. (US 2010/0150748).
Regarding claim 18, McElveen et al. teach:
A method of replacing an induction motor having a gear drive in heat rejection equipment (abstract, para 11), the method comprising:
removing the induction motor having a first height dimension (para 11);
providing a permanent magnet motor having a second height dimension that is less than or equal to the first height dimension (para 11 - inherent – else it would not fit),
the permanent magnet motor (30, Fig 2) comprising:
a body (by 32);
an upper bearing housing positioned on a top surface of the body (para 16, by 34,36);
a shaft (62) connected to and extending from the upper bearing housing;
a lower bearing housing positioned on a bottom surface of the body opposite the top surface (para 16); and
a mounting assembly (38) disposed on a lower end of the body and configured to couple the permanent magnet motor kit to the heat rejection equipment (para 11); and
replacing the induction motor having the gear drive with the permanent magnet motor (para 11).
Regarding claim 19/18, McElveen et al. teach further comprising mounting the permanent magnet motor to the heat rejection equipment by aligning a set of attachment points (by 44 or 38) of the induction motor gear drive with another set of attachment points of the permanent magnet motor, and coupling the permanent magnet motor to the heat rejection equipment with at least one coupling mechanism (para 11 and 44, Fig 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20180051667) in view of Pearce et al. (US 2016/0156245).
Regarding claim 10/1, Yang et al. disclose the invention as discussed above, except further comprising a control box for providing power to the motor and protruding outwardly from a side of the body.
Pearce et al. teach an apparatus further comprising a control box for providing power to the motor and protruding outwardly from a side of the body (para 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yang et al. to further comprising a control box for providing power to the motor and protruding outwardly from a side of the body, as Pearce et al. teach.
The motivation to do so would be based on available space surrounding the machine and desired level of cooling (para 16 of Pearce et al.) and desired control of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20180051667) In view of McElveen et al. (US 2010/0150748).
Regarding claim 11, Yang et al. disclose:
A permanent magnet (pre-amble, patentable weight not given) motor provided as a retrofit kit for an induction motor assembly (abstract, Figs 1-5), comprising:
a cylindrical body (10) at least partially enclosing at least one component of the permanent magnet motor (abstract);
an upper bearing housing (52, Fig 2) protruding upwardly from an upper portion of the body (10);
a shaft (3) extending upwardly from the upper bearing housing (52);
a lower bearing housing (4) protruding downwardly from a lower end of the body; and
a mounting assembly (B, Fig 3, see annotated Fig above) disposed on a lower end of the body (10) and substantially encircling and extending outwardly from the lower bearing housing (4),
wherein the volumetric footprint defining the permanent magnet motor is substantially equivalent to, or less than the volumetric footprint of the induction motor assembly (inherent – else it would not fit inside the device and be replaceable).
Yang et al. disclose the invention as discussed above except for the use of a permanent magnet motor.
McElveen et al. teaches a machine using a permanent magnet motor (paras 11, 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yang et al. wherein the motor is a permanent magnet motor, as taught by McElveen et al.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired level of cost, vibrations and corrosion resistance characteristics (para 10 of McElveen et al.).
Regarding claim 12/11 Yang et al. in view of McElveen et al. disclose the invention as discussed above. Yang et al. do not teach wherein the permanent magnet motor is defined by a first height dimension, and the induction motor assembly is defined by a second height dimension that is equal to or greater than the first height dimension of the permanent magnet motor.
However, since McElveen et al. teaches to replace an induction motor and a permanent magnet motor, it would be inherent to have wherein the permanent magnet motor is defined by a first height dimension, and the induction motor assembly is defined by a second height dimension that is equal to or greater than the first height dimension of the permanent magnet motor (else it would not fit inside the machine).
Regarding claim 13/11 Yang et al. in view of McElveen et al. teach the invention as discussed, except wherein the induction motor assembly comprises a first set of attachment points and the mounting assembly of the permanent magnet motor comprises a second set of attachment points designed to align with the first set of attachment points.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of wherein the induction motor assembly comprises a first set of attachment points and the mounting assembly of the permanent magnet motor comprises a second set of attachment points designed to align with the first set of attachment points, since it would simplify assemblage, reduce redundancy and improve efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yang et al in view of McElveen et al. wherein the induction motor assembly comprises a first set of attachment points and the mounting assembly of the permanent magnet motor comprises a second set of attachment points designed to align with the first set of attachment points.
The motivation to do so would it would simplify assemblage, reduce redundancy and improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 14/11, Yang et al. disclose further comprising a water slinger (44, para 17) substantially disposed between the upper bearing housing (52) and the shaft (3).
Regarding claim 15/11, Yang et al. disclose wherein the shaft (3, FIG 1) provides alignment and a clearance between the upper bearing housing (52) and a fan (5).
Regarding claim 16/11, Yang et al. disclose, wherein the mounting assembly (B, Fig 3) comprises three discrete legs (16) extending outwardly from the body (10) or the lower bearing housing (4).
Claim(s) 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20180051667) In view of McElveen et al. (US 2010/0150748), further in view of Manninen (US 2014/0314599).
Regarding claim 17/11 Yang et al. in view of McElveen et al. teach the invention as discussed, except wherein the lower bearing housing (4) supports a rotary bearing disposed therein.
Yang et al. in view of McElveen et al. do not teach the rotary bearing is designed to support axial and thrust loads equal to or greater than the induction motor gear drive.
Manninen teaches an apparatus wherein. the rotary bearing is designed to support axial and thrust loads equal to or greater than the induction motor gear drive (para 4, clam 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yang et al. in view of McElveen et al. wherein the rotary bearing is designed to support axial and thrust loads equal to or greater than the induction motor gear drive, as Manninen teaches.
The motivation to do so would be that it would permit load carrying capacity as needed (para 4 and clam 1 of Manninen).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McElveen et al. (US 2010/0150748).
Regarding claim 20/18, McElveen et al. teach wherein the mounting assembly has at least three discrete legs (16) disposed on the lower end of the body,
McElveen et al. do not teach at least one of the three discrete legs is imparted with a wider cross-sectional profile than the other two discrete legs.
However, as killed artisan would readily recognize the benefits of having at least one of the three discrete legs is imparted with a wider cross-sectional profile than the other two discrete legs, since it would depend on desired stability, cost and available space surrounding the components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify McElveen et al. wherein at least one of the three discrete legs is imparted with a wider cross-sectional profile than the other two discrete legs.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired stability, cost and available space surrounding the components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7-9 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 4/3 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…further comprising a second plurality of fins connected to and protruding outwardly from the lower bearing housing, wherein the second plurality of fins is offset from the first plurality of fins and is imparted with a different shape with respect to the first plurality of fins….”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 7/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein each of the three discrete legs includes at least one attachment point designed to couple the permanent magnet motor to the heat rejection equipment.….”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 8-9 are also allowable for depending on claim 7.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834