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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 recites that the first pair of flanges are disposed on a receiver and the first head is disposed on a motor plate. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 which also recites the first pair of flanges coupled to the fan. There is no disclosed embodiment with the first pair of flanges coupled to the fan, and disposed on a receiver, with the first head disposed on a motor plate(of the fan) as required by claims 1 and 5. It is unclear how such an arrangement would function, as both the first pair of flanges and the first head would be connected to the fan.
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.
Claim 6 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. In claim 6 it is unclear if the receiver is meant to be the same receiver of claim 1, or a different receiver. For the purposes of examination it was assumed that the receiver of claim 6 was the same receiver of claim 1, as this is what was meant to be claimed per the examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunning(US5435696) in view of Chang et al(US20090304377).
[claim 16] Cunning teaches a method for adjusting a relative angle between a fan(14) and a mounting means(13), the method comprising: disposing the fan at a first angular position relative to the mounting means(fig 2); rotating the fan in a first direction relative to the mounting means(fig 6) from the first angular position to a second angular position relative to the mounting means; and locking the fan at the second angular position relative to the mounting means(by 71, see C3 L38-45), wherein rotating the fan in a first direction relative to the mounting means comprises rotating a first pair of flanges(25-1, 25-2) relative to a first head(51) within an adjustable joint(15) coupled between the fan and the mounting means. Cunning however may not teach that automatically locking the fan at the second angular position. Chang teaches a similar adjustable joint, and further teaches automatically locking the mounting means at different angular positions(see para[0011-0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the arrangement of Chang to make automate the locking of the apparatus of Cunning, as this would make for simplified operation of the device and remove the need to manually actuating the locking of the joint of Cunning.
[claim 17] Cunning teaches a method as detailed above, however Cunning may not teach wherein rotating the first pair of flanges relative to the first head within an adjustable joint coupled between the fan and the mounting means comprises: pushing a pin disposed within the first head when contact is made between at least one of the first pair of flanges and the pin; moving the pin within a selection bore defined within the first head; and compressing a spring coupled to the pin. Chang teaches a similar adjustable joint, wherein rotating the adjustable joint comprises a first pair of flanges(2422a,2422b) rotating relative to a first head(2424), and pushing a pin(2426a) disposed within the first head when contact is made between at least one of the first pair of flanges and the pin; moving the pin within a selection bore(2422e) defined within the first head; and compressing a spring(2426c) coupled to the pin. The pins and springs allowing the joint to be positioned at a series of preselected positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the pin, spring and selection bore arrangement of Chang with the adjustable joint of Cunning, as this would allow the joint to be positioned at a series of preselected positions as taught by Chang.
[claim 18] when arranged as above, wherein locking the fan at the second angular position relative to the mounting means comprises: aligning a selection aperture(2422e) defined in at least one of the first pair of flanges with a selection bore(2424a) defined in the first head; expanding a spring(2426c) disposed within the selection bore; and pushing a pin(2426a) disposed within the selection bore through the selection aperture.
[claim 19] when arranged as above wherein rotating the fan in the first direction relative to the mounting means comprises overcoming a threshold force provided by a spring(2426c) within the adjustable joint, wherein a fixed end of the spring(end fixed to pin 2426a) is coupled to at least one of the first pair of flanges and wherein a free end of the spring is disposed within the first head.
[claim 20] Cunning in view of Chang teaches a method as detailed above, however Cunning may not teach that rotating the fan in the first direction relative to the mounting means further comprises rotating a second pair of flanges relative to a second head within the adjustable joint, wherein the first pair of flanges and the first head are disposed at one end of the adjustable joint and wherein the second pair of flanges and the second had are disposed at an opposing end of the adjustable joint. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a second pair of flanges and mating second head within the adjustable joint, as this would be the mere duplication of parts essential to the practice of the invention and would have the predictable effect of providing an additional point of articulation for the joint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4,9-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632