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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
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: “vibration-proof portions” which uses the generic placeholder “portion” coupled with the function “suppressing transmission of vibration from the fan assembly”.
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 (In 0038 of the specification as filed: “As each vibration-proof portion 5, a leaf spring, foam such as sponge and urethane foam, or an elastic member such as rubber can be adopted”.), 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-6, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenitani US 5788467 in view of Mease US 7054155.
Zenitani discloses:
1. A fan assembly (see e.g. Fig 2) comprising: a chassis portion (11); a plurality of axial fans 2 arrayed in the chassis portion along a first direction which is perpendicular to an axial direction of each of the plurality of axial fans (see e.g. Fig 2 where the fans are arranged in the same manner as applicant’s Fig 3); wherein the chassis portion includes a center portion (center portion of chassis 11), a first side portion on one lateral side of the center portion along the first direction (rear side of 11 which includes 22), and a second side portion on another lateral side of the center portion along the firs direction (front side portion of 11 which includes handle 19); the fan assembly further includes a connector 22 located closer to an outermost surface of the first side portion than the plurality of axial fans is (as best understood, see Fig 2), the connector electrically connecting the plurality of axial fans and an external device (see e.g. “A unit-side connector 22 for electrical connection to the electronic device is mounted on the rear plate 11b of the unit housing 11. The unit-side connector 22 is engaged and connected with a cabinet-side connector provided inside the cabinet 1.” in col 5 lines 43-47); and a handle 19 is located on the second side portion, the handle including a grip portion which protrudes out from an outermost surface on an end portion on the second side portion in the first direction (see e.g. Fig 2).
Zenitani does not disclose a first vibration-proof portion is located on an outer surface of an end portion on the first side portion and protrudes outward, the first vibration-proof portion suppressing transmission of vibration from the fan assembly.
However, Mease discloses a fan tray 100 where a first vibration-proof portion 82 is located on an outer surface of an end portion on the first side portion and protrudes outward between the tray and the (see e.g. Fig 2-3), the first vibration-proof portion suppressing transmission of vibration from the fan assembly (82 is as spring which is the same vibration proof portion as applicant discloses).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize springs 82 on the outer surface of the fan tray as taught by Mease in the fan tray of Zenitani to gain the benefit providing EMI grounding as taught by Mease in col 6 lines 60-66.
Zenitani as modified above discloses (references are made to Zenitani unless noted otherwise):
Claim 2 (currently amended): The fan assembly according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the first vibration-proof portions are provided (see 82 of Mease); the plurality of the first vibration-proof portions are provided on the outer surface of the end portion on the first side portion (see e.g. Figs 2-3 of Mease), the outer surface of the end portion on the first side portion includes portions extending in at least one of a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see e.g. 11e or 11d of Zenitani in Fig 2, and e.g. the top wall in Fig 2 of Mease at the left end portion) and a third direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction.
Claim 3 (currently amended): The fan assembly according to claim 1, at least a portion of the first vibration-proof portion is located adjacent to a position of the connector in the first direction (see e.g. Fig 2 of Mease wherein 82 at the leftmost end portion is located adjacent to connector 160).
Claim 4 (currently amended): The fan assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a second vibration-proof portion that is located on the outer surface of the end portion on the second side portion and protrudes outward (see e.g. the leftmost 82 in Fig 3 of Mease at the end portion of the left side portion).
Claim 5 (currently amended): The fan assembly according to claim 4, wherein a plurality of the second vibration-proof portions are provided (see e.g. the two leftmost 82 in Fig 3 of Mease at the end portion of the left side portion); the plurality of the second vibration-proof portions are provided on the outer surface of the end portion on the second side portion (see e.g. Fig 3 of Mease), the outer surface of the end portion on the second side portion includes portions extending in at least one of a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see e.g. portions of 11e or 11d of Zenitani in Fig 2, and e.g. portions of the top wall in Fig 3 of Mease which includes 82 and which extends in the axial direction of the fans which is perpendicular to the first direction) and a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction.
Claim 6 (currently amended): The fan assembly according to claim 4, wherein the chassis portion includes: a third side wall portion (11a of Zenitani) located closer to the second side portion in the first direction than the plurality of axial fans is (as best understood, see e.g. Fig 2 of Zenitani),the third side wall portion extending in a direction intersecting the first direction (see e.g. Fig 2 of Zenitani); and in the first direction, at least a portion of the first vibration-proof portion is located adjacent to a position of the connector (see e.g. 82 in Fig 2 of Zenitani which is located adjacent to the connector 160); and in the first direction, at least a portion of the second vibration-proof portion is located adjacent to a position of the third side wall portion (see e.g. 82 of Mease which is located adjacent to the leftmost end wall in Fig 3).
12. The fan assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first vibration proof portion includes one of more of a spring (see spring 82 of Zenitani), a foam portion, or an elastic portion.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenitani US 5788467 in view of Mease US 7054155 in further view of Lin CN201363316Y.
Zenitani does not disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Lin discloses a fan further comprising a third vibration-proof portion 11 covering the fan 10.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the vibration proof member of Lin in the system of Zenitani for each of the fans 12 to gain the benefit of eliminating transfer of vibrations from the fans to the fan chassis.
With this modification, Zenitani as modified above would disclose the third vibration proof member at least partially located between the axial fan and the chassis portion in the axial direction and a fourth direction perpendicular to the first direction (see the vibration proof member 11 of Lin which would be used on each fan 12 of Zenitani).
Zenitani as modified above discloses:
8. The fan assembly according to claim 7, wherein the chassis portion includes: a bottom wall portion (11c of Zenitani) located on a ventilation port side of the plurality of axial fans, extending in a direction intersecting the rotation axis (see Fig 4 of Zenitani), and including an opening connected to the ventilation port of each of the plurality of axial fans [see “The bottom wall of each fan mounting portion 13 (the lower plate 11c of the unit housing 11) has a ventilation opening (first ventilation opening) 15 corresponding to the air inlet of each fan 12” in col 4 lines 30-33 of Zenitani]; a first side wall portion (one of 11e or 11d of Zenitani) located away from the plurality of axial fans in the fourth direction, the first side wall portion extending in the axial direction parallel to the rotation axis and the first direction (see e.g. Fig 2 of Zenitani); and a second side wall portion (the other of 11e or 11d of Zenitani) located opposite from the first side wall portion in the fourth direction with the plurality of axial fans being located between the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion (see e.g. Fig 2 of Zenitani), the second side wall portion extending in the axial direction parallel to the rotation axis and the first direction (see e.g. Fig 2 of Zenitani); and at least one of the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion is a different body from the bottom wall, and is attached to an end portion of the bottom wall in the fourth direction (see Fig 4 of Zenitani).
9. The fan assembly according to claim 8, wherein the third vibration-proof portion is located at least between the axial fan and the first side wall portion and between the axial fan and the second side wall portion (see the vibration proof member 11 of Lin which would be used on each fan 12 of Zenitani).
10. The fan assembly according to claim 8, wherein the chassis portion further includes an attachment portion to which at least one of the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion is attached (see e.g. any portion of 11a and/or 11e/11d which attaches 11a to 11e/11d as in Figs 2, 4, and 7 of Zenitani), and at least a portion of the attachment portion extends in the axial direction from an end portion of the bottom wall portion (11c of Zenitani) in the fourth direction (see e.g. Figs 2, 4, and 7 of Zenitani).
11. The fan assembly according to claim 10, wherein the axial fan includes a cylindrical housing extending in the axial direction (see 18 in Fig 5 of Zenitani and the corresponding housing of Lin), and the attachment portion extending from the bottom wall portion overlaps a space between the housings of the axial fans adjacent in the first direction when viewed from the fourth direction (see the vibration proof member 11 of Lin which would be used on each fan 12 of Zenitani).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed to the pending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. New rejections using Zenitani and Mease are being used to teach the limitations which applicant argues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746