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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/11/2026.
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: control device in claim 1 which corresponds to a printed circuit board assembly in page 7 of the specification. Examiner notes that claim 2 recites structure for the control device and therefore claim 2 is not being interpreted under 112(f).
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, 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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mizoe (US 2022/0345002 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mizoe discloses a blower (Mizoe 1, examiner notes Mizoe’s motor unit 1 includes a fan, motor, and drive circuit as shown in figure 13 and is therefore being interpreted as a blower) for a vehicle battery system (Mizoe [0136]), comprising:
A motor (Mizoe 11);
A control device (Mizoe 2, examiner notes Mizoe’s substrate 2 is a printed circuit board (Mizoe [0047]) which is consistent with applicant’s control device in page 7 of the specification), which is electrically connected to the motor (Mizoe [0048]) to control operation of the motor (Mizoe [0048]);
A housing (Mizoe 7), within which the control device is disposed (see Mizoe figures 1-4); and
An electrical connector (Mizoe 6c) having a plurality of pins (Mizoe 63c), the plurality of pins each having inner end portion (Mizoe 632) located inside the housing (see Mizoe figure 6) and outer end portions (Mizoe 633) exposed outside the housing (see Mizoe figures 5a and 5b), the inner end portions being electrically connected to the control device (Mizoe [0063]);
Wherein at least a portion of the electrical connector is integrally formed on the housing part (Mizoe [0115]). Examiner notes that the claim limitation “during a molding process of a housing part of the housing…” is a product by process and therefore the prior art only needs to disclose the product of “at least a portion of the electrical connector is integrally formed on the housing part” and therefore Mizoe’s teaching of a portion of the electrical connector being integrally formed with the housing is sufficient to read upon the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Mizoe as applied to claim 1 further discloses the electrical connector (Mizoe 6) is configured as a plug-in connector (Mizoe [0056], examiner has interpreted Mizoe’s insertion-mounting type connector as being a plug-in connector); and the control device is configured as a printed circuit board assembly (Mizoe [0047]). Examiner notes that the claim limitations are claimed in the alternative using “and/or” and therefore the limitation “the housing part is injection molded” is optional since the other claim limitations are present.
Regarding claim 3, Mizoe as applied to claim 1 discloses the inner end portions (Mizoe 632) of the pins are electrically connected directly to the control device (Mizoe [0063]). Examiner notes that the claim limitations are claimed in the alternative using “and/or” and therefore the limitation “a stator of the motor is fixedly mounted to the control device” is optional since the other claim limitation is present.
Regarding claim 4, Mizoe as applied to claim 1 further discloses the inner end portions (Mizoe 632) are plugged into electrical connecting holes (Mizoe 23) of the control device (Mizoe 2) and/or at least an intermediate portion of the plurality of pins (Mizoe 63) located between the inner end portion and the outer end portions are exposed from an outside of the housing (see Mizoe figure 5a and 5b) to provide test electrical contacts for testing the blower (examiner notes “providing test contacts” is intended use and that Mizoe is silent regarding test but the exposed portion of the pin is capable of functioning as a test contact); and/or at least a section of an intermediate portion of the plurality of pins (Mizoe 63) is located between the inner end portions and the outer end portions is exposed on an inner side of the housing (see Mizoe figures 5a and 5b).
Regarding claim 5, Mizoe as applied to claim 1 discloses the plurality of pins (Mizoe 63c) are arranged side by side (see Mizoe figure 11). Examiner notes that the claim limitations are claimed in the alternative using “and/or” and therefore the limitations “the control device is fixed to an inner side of the housing part and the electrical connector as a whole is integrally formed on the housing part” and “the inner end portions of the plurality of pins are bent to expand laterally outwards, so as to increase gaps between the inner end portions” are optional since the other claim limitation is present.
Regarding claim 6, Mizoe as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrical connector (Mizoe 6c) is formed at a periphery of the housing (see Mizoe figure 11); and/or the inner end portions (Mizoe 632) are electrically connected to the control device by soldering (Mizoe [0063]); and/or at least a portion of the inner end portions (Mizoe 632) extend axially (see Mizoe figure 6, D1 is an axial direction of the blower assembly); and/or at least a portion of the electrical connector (Mizoe 6c) extends radially (see Mizoe figure 11).
Regarding claim 7, Mizoe as applied to claim 1 further discloses the blower of claim 1 (Mizoe 1) is a ventilation device for a vehicle power battery system (Mizoe [0136]).
Regarding claim 8, Mizoe as applied to claim 7 further discloses the vehicle power battery system (Mizoe 1, 91, 92, and 93) comprises the ventilation device (Mizoe 1) according to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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 R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights