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 .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on December 22nd, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 23rd, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claim 1 has been amended and Claim 16 has been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-15 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
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: “checking device” in claim 5 and “heat conducting element” in claim 9.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22nd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges “Applicant submits that this rejection is moot, since claim 1 now includes the subject matter of allowable claim 16. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be withdrawn in view of the above comments and amendments”. Upon further consideration, the Examiner finds that Paul continues to disclose the amended features of Claim 1 (i.e. cancelled Claim 16). In particular, Paul’s permanents magnets (26, 28) form an axial magnetic bearing for the rotor (6) (clearly detailed within para. 11); they are not part of Paul’s stator (4, 10, 12) (see also para. 10). As such, Paul’s stator (4, 10, 12) is, in fact, free of permanent magnets, as claimed. The Examiner previously misread Paul’s disclosure and apologizes for the inconvenience.
In view of this new rejection under Paul, this action is being made NON-FINAL.
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, 3, 7, 10, & 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10246608 to Paul (attached to previous office action) in view of US 2008/0036321 to Yu.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Paul discloses:
(1) A fan (Fig. 1; paras. 1, 8) for generating a compressible fluid flow (paras. 2-3, 15), the fan comprising: a stator (4, 10, 12), the stator being free of permanent magnets (stator 4 includes a core 10 and a coil 12, and thus, is free of permanent magnets; see para. 10); and a rotor (6), the stator together with the rotor forming an electromagnetic rotary drive (2) for rotating the rotor about an axial direction (paras. 10-15), the rotor being an external rotor (Fig. 1), the rotor comprising a magnetic core (30) configured in an annular manner (Fig. 1; para. 13), and an impeller (24) comprising a hub (at lead line 6 in Fig. 1) on which a plurality of blades (at lead line 24) configured to generate the fluid flow is arranged (Fig. 1), the stator being a bearing and drive stator configured to magnetically drive the rotor without contact (para. 35; “winding 24 is energized to induce with the magnetic member 44 an electric potential, thereby an angular displacement of the magnetic member 44”) and magnetically levitate the rotor without contact with respect to the stator (para. 35; “a magnetic floating status”), and the rotor being capable of being actively magnetically levitated in a radial plane perpendicular to the axial direction (para. 35)
Although Paul discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose a substantially tubular housing, as claimed (Paul does not specifically depict a fan housing).
However, providing a tubular housing for an axial fan is immensely well known in the art, as shown by Yu. In particular, Yu discloses another fan assembly (Fig. 1) similar to Paul, and which specifically discloses a substantially tubular housing (20) having a suction opening (left side opening; Fig. 2) configured to suck the compressible fluid therethrough and a pressure side opening (right side opening; Fig. 2) configured to eject the compressible fluid (paras. 3 & 35). Yu goes on to disclose the use of struts (30, 34) for rigidly supporting the stator housing therein as well. It is well known in the art of axial fans that a surrounding tubular housing provides both support and protection for the fan’s components and the user. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a safer, well-protected fan, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Yu in combination with those seen in Paul in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Paul’s fan assembly with a surrounding tubular housing (as taught in Yu) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a more durable fan drive that protects its delicate components from damage.
In regards to Claim 3, Paul as modified by Yu clearly results in Paul’s rotor and stator housing being arranged in a tubular housing (via the combination noted above), with Paul’s stator housing being fixed in the surrounding tubular housing by struts (30, 34; Fig. 1 of Yu).
In regards to Claim 7, Paul discloses a plurality of laminated coil cores (10) each of which extends in the radial direction (Fig. 1), and carries a winding (12) configured to generate an electromagnetic rotary field (paras. 10, 13).
In regards to Claim 10, Paul’s rotor is configured for fluid-dynamic stabilization of the rotor against tilting (“the outer rotor runs completely wear-free”; para. 5)
In regards to Claim 13, each blade of Paul’s plurality of blades has a leading edge (i.e. the right end of the rotor 6, seen in Fig. 1), each leading edge extending perpendicularly to the axial direction (apparent in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 14, each blade of Paul’s plurality of blades has a trailing edge (near lead line 24; Fig. 1), each trailing edge opening into the hub at an angle to the axial direction different from 90 degrees (the trailing edge is parallel (at a 0 degree angle) to the axial direction; apparent in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul-Yu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FR 2,820,176 to Laurent (attached to previous office action).
In regards to Claim 15, although each blade in Paul has an implicit trailing edge, Paul does not further disclose a stabilizing ring at the trailing edges and arranged coaxial with the rotor.
However, Laurent discloses another axial fan device (3) having a rotor (8) similar to that of Schob, and further discloses a stabilizing/balancing ring (12) disposed at the blade trailing edges (as shown in Figs. 1-4), the stabilizing ring being arranged coaxially with the rotor (Fig. 1). Laurent discloses that such a stabilizing/balancing ring (12) allows for the placement of inertia weights (20) in a balanced manner so that the rotational inertia of the fan can be increased while remaining balanced. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an axial fan having higher inertia, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Laurent in combination with those seen in Paul-Yu in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impeller blade tips of Paul with the stabilizing ring (12) and associated inertia weights (20) of Laurent in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an axial fan that has higher rotational inertia while remaining balanced (as taught in Laurent).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12 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: Paul is considered the most relevant prior art document as it relates to Applicant’s claimed stator/rotor arrangement. Regarding Claim 2, Paul specifically teaches the use of aluminum or stainless steel (not plastic) for his stator housing, and teaches such metal materials are critical in order to optimize heat transfer. Thus, there would have been no reasonable motivation to have further modified Paul’s stator housing with a plastic material because doing so would have destroyed the originally intended heat transfer optimization in Paul. Regarding Claim 4, Paul lacks a second portion of the stator can that is at least as larger in diameter as an outer diameter of the rotor magnetic core. Outside of impermissible hindsight reconstruction, there would have been no reasonable reason or motivation to have further modified Paul’s stator housing with the large diameter stator housing second portion because doing so would have only caused an increase in overall size of Paul’s drive assembly, thus destroying Paul’s specific desire to provide a compact fan drive arrangement. Regarding Claim 8, see the previous rejection. Regarding Claim 11, Paul lacks any teaching of the magnetic core of the rotor being closer to the pressure-side end than to the suction-side end of the hub with respect to the axial direction (Paul teaches a centered magnetic core that axially aligns with the stator), and there would have been no reasonable reason or motivation to have further modified Paul’s rotor core with such an arrangement because doing so would have only destroyed Paul’s desire for an aligned stator/core arrangement.
Conclusion
This action is NON-FINAL. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC