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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner notes that the language “due to the size of the support portion that restricts the support portion” in Line 20 of Claim 1, was not part of the claims examined in the non-final office action.
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.
Claims 5-6 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.
Regarding Claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation "the printed circuit board" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. --Additionally, since claim 4 properly introduces the printed circuit board limitation in question, for the purpose of examination claim 5 will be read as being dependent on claim 4 and not claim 3.--.
Regarding Claim 6: Claim 6 recites the limitation "the part of the motor" & "the contact of the support portion" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 states:
Claim 2. (Cancelled).
Claim 6 states:
The blower according to claim 2,
Given that claim 2 is cancelled, claim 6 fails to further limit claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For the purpose of examination claim 6 will be read as being dependent upon claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godo US 2019/0154056 in view of Icotek – cable management systems (hereinafter Icotek). Examiner note: the Icotek reference is the 187 Page NPL – 06/18/2025 – document in the file wrapper.
PNG
media_image1.png
671
1070
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2A of Godo US 2019/0154056 (Attached Figure A)
PNG
media_image2.png
578
976
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2B of Godo US 2019/0154056 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 1: Godo US 2019/0154056 does disclose the limitations:
A blower (the blower is defined by the sum of its parts and includes element 1, ¶0028) comprising:
a case (8,¶0028) having an opening (opening = opening formed between end surfaces of elements 6 & 7 of the case, ¶0034, ¶0028, Fig 2B);
an impeller (2, ¶0028) disposed in the case (Fig 2B);
a motor (M,13, ¶0028,¶0033) disposed in the case (Fig 2B) and configured to drive the impeller (as known in the art, Fig 2B, Fig 3B);
a grommet (14, ¶0034) disposed in the case (¶0034, Figs 2A-2B);
a wiring (15, see Annotated Figure 2A of Godo US 2019/0154056 (Attached Figure A) above); and a member (Attached Figure A),
wherein the grommet includes first and second holes (Attached Figure A) that communicate between an inside and an outside of the case via the opening (see Annotated Figure 2B of Godo US 2019/0154056 (Attached Figure B) above & Attached Figure A; as understood from the two Attached Figures, each of the identified first and second holes in the structure of the grommet 14 pass through the articulated opening in Attached Figure B), the wiring is inserted into the first hole (Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B). Godo US 2019/0154056 is silent regarding the limitations: a plug member, and the plug member closes the second hole, the plug member includes:
an insertion portion inserted into the second hole, and
a support portion having such a size as not to be inserted into the second hole and supporting the insertion portion,
the support portion is located inside the case with respect to the insertion portion, and
the plug member is restricted from being pulled out of the second hole to the outside of the case due to the size of the support portion that restricts the support portion from being inserted into the second hole.
However Icotek does disclose in Page 235 the limitations: a plug member (= plug member shown in the picture & technical drawing on page 235), and the plug member closes the second hole (Icotek discloses that the device is used to seal openings no longer in use, thus it would be capable of closing/sealing the second hole as claimed), the plug member includes:
an insertion portion (the elongate body) inserted into the second hole (following the combination of prior art, the insertion portion/elongate body would be inserted into the second hole to close the second hole as claimed since Icotek teaches sealing the opening with the plug member on Page 235), and
a support portion (enlarged head) having such a size as not to be inserted into the second hole (the size of the enlarged head/support portion is different than the size of the elongate body/insertion portion, thus the plugs taught by Icotek are capable of being used as claimed) and supporting the insertion portion (the size of the enlarged head/support portion is different than the size of the elongate body/insertion portion, thus the plugs taught by Icotek are capable of being used as claimed),
the support portion is located inside the case with respect to the insertion portion (in the combination of prior art the support portion would be located inside the case as claimed), and
the plug member is restricted from being pulled out of the second hole to the outside of the case due to the size of the support portion that restricts the support portion from being inserted into the second hole (the size of the enlarged head/support portion is different than the size of the elongate body/insertion portion, thus the plugs taught by Icotek are capable of being used as claimed; Also it is noted that since the size of the enlarged head/support portion is greater than the size of the elongate body/insertion portion which fills the second hole the size of the support portion would inherently restrict the support portion from being inserted into the second hole, since it is larger than the elongate body/insertion portion of the plug member; Additionally, it is noted that common sense by the PHOSITA would also suggest that in the combination of prior art, the plug be arranged such that the support portion is located inside the case in order to eliminate any feature which could be used to grab the plug member and remove it prematurely from the second opening. This is because if the plug were located with the support portion on the exterior surface of the second opening, the enlarged head would provide a part which could be grabbed to prematurely remove the plug member from the second opening and recreate the undesirable opening).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plug member in the blower of (Attached Figure A) of Godo US 2019/0154056, in light of the teachings of Icotek, in order to seal second openings not in use in the grommet of Godo
Further Regarding Claim 1: following the combination of prior art the plug member (Godo - Attached Figure A | Icotek – Page 235) would close the second hole as claimed since Icotek teaches sealing the opening with the plug member.
Regarding Claim 3, the plugs of Icotek include the insertion portion and the support portion and are offered in different sizes (Page 235). Applicant should note that the plugs taught by Icotek are capable of being used as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6: Godo US 2019/0154056 as modified by Icotek discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein (i) in a first state in which the insertion portion is fully inserted into the second hole, a space exists between the support portion and a part of the motor, and (ii) contact of the support portion with the part of the motor occurs in a second state in which the plug member has been shifted toward the inside of the case and partially withdrawn from the second hole”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the plug member such that (i) in a first state in which the insertion portion is fully inserted into the second hole, a space exists between the support portion and a part of the motor, and (ii) contact of the support portion with the part of the motor occurs in a second state in which the plug member has been shifted toward the inside of the case and partially withdrawn from the second hole--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having (i) in a first state in which the insertion portion is fully inserted into the second hole, a space exists between the support portion and a part of the motor, and (ii) contact of the support portion with the part of the motor occurs in a second state in which the plug member has been shifted toward the inside of the case and partially withdrawn from the second hole versus the design taught by Godo US 2019/0154056 as modified by Icotek. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that (i) in a first state in which the insertion portion is fully inserted into the second hole, a space exists between the support portion and a part of the motor, and (ii) contact of the support portion with the part of the motor occurs in a second state in which the plug member has been shifted toward the inside of the case and partially withdrawn from the second hole and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, Page 9 Line 1-20 of the SPEC indicates that the length of the plug member is designed such that if it is pushed from the outside of the device it will contact a part of the motor so that it can’t be pushed out of the second hole (e.g. like the plug member of Icotek would be when designed in the same manner). Thus, when the plug member is designed such that (i) in a first state in which the insertion portion is fully inserted into the second hole, a space exists between the support portion and a part of the motor, and (ii) contact of the support portion with the part of the motor occurs in a second state in which the plug member has been shifted toward the inside of the case and partially withdrawn from the second hole the plug member of Icotek in the combination of Godo US 2019/0154056 as modified by Icotek will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of contacting a part of the motor so that it can’t be pushed out of the second hole.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godo US 2019/0154056 in view of Icotek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of evidence by Groth Music.
Regarding Claim 7: Godo US 2019/0154056 as modified by Icotek discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, it is conceivable that the device of Godo would have multiple second openings (i.e. Godo teaches: wherein the second hole comprises a plurality of second holes) which would need to be plugged by multiple plug members taught by Icotek. Godo US 2019/0154056 as modified by Icotek does not disclose the limitations: the insertion portion comprises a plurality of insertion portions, and the support portion comprises a single support portion that supports the plurality of insertion portions.
However it has long been known to incorporate multiple objects into a single device when the multiple objects need to be used at the same time. One example of this is illustrated by the evidence of Groth which teaches a five line chalk or marker holder. The examiner takes official notice that devices like the five line chalk or marker holder of Groth were used by teachers in the 1980’s and 19990’s to make five lines at once in a class room environment. As it relates to the instant application the chalk and the wire extensions in the device of Groth correspond to the plurality of insertion portions, and the handle in the device of Groth corresponds to the single support portion.
Hence it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --make a plurality of plug members into a single part which has a plurality of insertion portions (which are used to fill a plurality of second holes) that are supported by a single support portion--, since such applicant has not disclosed that this arrangement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that Godo US 2019/0154056 as modified by Icotek and evidenced by Groth would perform equally well with the plug member having a plurality of insertion portions (which are used to fill a plurality of second holes) that are supported by a single support portion, given that such an arrangement would allow for using multiple insertion portions to plug multiple second holes with a single part.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godo US 2019/0154056 in view of Icotek as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hagiwara USPN 4773828.
Regarding Claim 4: Godo US 2019/0154056 in view of Icotek discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 3. While Godo US 2019/0154056 discloses that element 13 (i.e. the structure corresponding to the part of the motor being claimed) is a motor substrate (¶0033), Godo US 2019/0154056 does not disclose the limitations: a printed circuit board.
However Hagiwara USPN 4773828 does disclose: a blower (title) having a motor (motor = stator 5, rotor 14, printed circuit board 7, Fig 1, Fig 4, Column 2 Line 31-61), a part of the motor (part of the motor = printed circuit board 7), wherein the motor includes a printed circuit board (it does, as explained above the motor includes printed circuit board 7), and the part of the motor is the printed circuit board (it is, as explained above the part of the motor is printed circuit board 7).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the motor substrate 13 of Godo US 2019/0154056 with the printed circuit board 7 taught by Hagiwara USPN 4773828 in order to accommodate circuit elements for driving the motor (Column 1 Line 24-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 5:The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 5 including “wherein a length of the plug member in an axial direction of the second hole is longer than a distance from an inner surface of the grommet to an edge of the printed circuit board” in combination with all the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the available prior art in the claimed manner is neither contemplated nor foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention.
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125)
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 5 ¶4-Page 6 ¶4: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1 based on the art of Godo in view of Icotek, by arguing there is no reason to combine Godo and Icotek.
--Examiner disagrees. The only reason why a plug would be used in the context claimed is if there was an opening in the housing / junction box / bulkhead that needed to be plugged to make sure that the electronics inside are not damaged by the external environment. In fact ¶0004-¶0005 of the SPEC of the instant application states that this is the reason why the plug member is provided. Furthermore, the art of Icotek specifically states that the disclosed plugs are for the sealing of pierced cable entry (i.e. openings) which are no longer in use.
Thus since Applicants own SPEC states in the background section at ¶0004 that it is conceivable to have a grommet with openings that are not being used, which creates an undesirable condition for the device having the grommet; and the prior art of Icotek states that the plugs are used to close openings which are not being used. It follows that - a PHOSITA would use the plug of Icotek to close unused openings in the grommet of Gordo (which Applicants own SPEC admits is conceivable in ¶0004) in order to seal the unused openings with the plugs of Icotek, as taught by Icotek.
Thus both the prior art of Icotek and the common sense of the PHOSITA (which would instruct one to plug a hole by using a plug designed to plug the undesirable hole) provide motivation to combine the teachings of Godo and Icotek.
Further regarding applicants argument (Page 6 ¶2) that, there is no disclosure of using the plug in the state where the support portion is located inside the case with respect to the insertion portion. The examiner notes that common sense by the PHOSITA would also suggest that the plug member be arranged such that the support portion is located inside the case in order to eliminate any feature which could be used to grab the plug member and remove it prematurely from the second opening. This is because if the plug were located with the support portion on the exterior surface, the enlarged head would provide a part which could be grabbed to prematurely remove the plug member from the second opening and recreate the undesirable opening in the device using the plug member to close the second opening.
Accordingly for the reasons described above, applicants arguments are not persuasive.--
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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 G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746