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 Arguments
Applicant’s traversal of the rejections based on prior art begins, in substance, on page 7 of the Remarks. Applicant alleges that Rolston does not disclose “the arrangement of features recited in claim 26” including “the first part comprising a plurality of vanes to define exit paths for airflow from the fan,” “a second part positioned axially downstream of the first part,” and “the second part comprising a plurality of members to define access windows...to provide access to a rotating component” as presently amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the prior Office Action does not establish disclosure of “a first part comprising a plurality of vanes to define exit paths for airflow from the fan....” Applicant acknowledges that the Office Action does in fact establish disclosure of “a first part” by citing to “portions including 114 and 121.” Applicant also acknowledges that the Office Action does in fact establish disclosure of “a second part” by citing to “portions including 112 and 122.” Applicant nonetheless asserts that the Office Action “has not shown that 112 and 122 of Rolston are ‘a second part positioned axially downstream of the first part, the second part comprising a plurality of members to define access windows’ as in amended claim 26.”
This argument is fundamentally without merit because the previous claims did not recite such a configuration. As shown below, Rolston may be reasonably interpreted as disclosing the instant limitations; as this is the first opportunity for the Office to review the claims as amended, it is irrelevant whether the prior Office Action established such disclosure because the previous Office Action was evaluating a different claim scope. As such, the argument cannot be considered persuasive.
Applicant continues, acknowledging that page 4 of the Office Action cites to Rolston for the teaching that “a gap in which someone may access a rotating component” such that “the second part is ‘arranged to provide access.’” Applicant asserts that the Office Action does not establish that “the first part and the second part are structurally or functionally separate” with “the first part comprising a plurality of vanes to define exit paths for airflow from the fan,” “a second part positioned axially downstream of the first part,” and “the second part comprising a plurality of members to define access windows...to provide access to a rotating component” as presently amended. Applicant’s argument is, once again, without merit because as with the argument above, the prior Office Action evaluated a different claim scope and cannot be deficient for an alleged failure to teach the present claim scope.
Additionally, Applicant’s assertion that “the first part and the second part are structurally or functionally separate” is fundamentally flawed because the claims, as amended or previously presented, do not recite or otherwise require a structural or functional separation. Indeed, there is nothing within amended claim 26 that precludes interpretation of the first and second parts being distinct sections of the same physical element. Claim 26 as amended recites a first part which surrounds a fan and comprises a plurality of vanes to define exit paths for airflow from the fan. The claim further recites a second part positioned “axially downstream” of the first part, the second part comprising a plurality of members that define access windows to access a component within the adaptor. There is nothing in the recitations of claim 26 that require the first part and the second part to be discrete elements that are physically or functionally separate from each other; indeed, the claim may be reasonably interpreted as disclosing a singular structure where an arbitrary portion of the singular structure is designated as a first part and another arbitrary portion is a second part. So long as these arbitrarily designated portions meet the limitations of the instant claim (which those portions of Rolston do, as detailed below), then the claimed subject matter is met regardless of the first and second parts being integrally formed into a singular adaptor.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a physical and or functional separation of the first and second parts) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, Applicant does not define “downstream” in any manner that would meaningfully limit the claimed subject matter. Indeed, all that is required is that the first and second parts occupy different spaces along the axial direction. As shown by Rolston and discussed below, Rolston factually discloses the second part being “downstream” of the first part when the term “downstream” is broadly interpreted. Thus, these arguments are also unpersuasive.
On the basis of these arguments, Applicant concludes that “amended claim 26 is patentable over the cited references.” As discussed above and below, this simply is not correct. Rolston may be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as disclosing each and every limitation of amended claim 26 and, thus, claim 26 is not patentable.
Applicant then addresses the rejection of claims 28 and 30, traversing the finding that the corresponding subject matter of each is found in FIG 19 of Rolston. Applicant, without any attempt at discussion or an appropriate amount of logical reasoning, summarily concludes that the Office Action fails to show “a first part ‘comprising a plurality of vanes to define exit paths for airflow from the fan’ axially adjacent and/or spaced from a second part ‘comprising a plurality of members to define access windows’ as in claims 28 and 30.
It is unclear how the first part (including portions 114 and 121) is anything other than “axially adjacent” to the second part (including portions 112 and 122). Cambridge Dictionary defines “adjacent” as “very near, next to, or touching.” As is unambiguously shown in FIG 19, the first part is depicted on the left, and the second part is depicted on the right. The axial direction, as would be immediately understood by those of ordinary skill, would extend from left to right in the figure. It is immediately obvious to any person of ordinary skill that the first part (defined as elements 114 and 121) is “very near, next to, or touching” the second part (defined as elements 112 and 122). Thus, there is no plausible or reasonable argument that the first part is anything other than axially adjacent to the second part; as such, claim 28 is unambiguously disclosed by Rolston. As such, the argument is both facially without merit and wholly unpersuasive.
It is also unclear what basis Applicant has for arguing that the first part is “spaced from a second part.” Neither of claims 28 or 30 recite such a configuration, likely because the instant application does not disclose such a configuration. Instead, claim 30 recites “the second part is arranged to space the first part axially from the prime mover.” As disclosed and cited by Examiner, the prime mover of Rolston is affixed to the second part, and the second part exists between the first part and the prime mover; thus, the second part inherently causes the first part to be spaced from the prime mover. As such, Applicant’s argument is not only unpersuasive for a lack of factual basis, but also fundamentally flawed because it once again attempts to argue for subject matter which is neither claimed nor disclosed.
Applicant continues, traversing the rejection of claim 34 as disclosed by paragraphs [0037] and [0173]. Applicant attempts to nitpick the amended language by alleging that the Office Action fails to suggest “the first part...to provide[sic] a steady expansion of airflow” as recited. Applicant, however, has clearly failed to consider that the vanes (i.e., the angled surfaces extending along members 116, as depicted by FIG 18A) may be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as being an element of “the first part” (defined as including portions 114 and 121, but not defined as excluding any other element) because, as shown in the same figure, every vane of the adaptor is connected to element 114, which is an element of the first part. Thus, Applicant’s contention that the Office Action does not show the subject matter of claim 34 is wholly meritless and unpersuasive.
Applicant also summarily asserts that “assigning the cross members to either the first part of the second part would result in inconsistent mapping of the claims to Rolston,” but this baseless contention is clearly refuted by the rejection below. Applicant does not attempt to elaborate on this baseless assertion and, therefore, Examiner finds that the assertion is nothing more than Applicant’s opinion. “[A]rguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As Applicant does not rely on any evidence or authority in making this assertion, the assertion cannot be considered persuasive.
Moreover, claim 34 does not recite any subject matter pertaining to the second part at all. Instead, claim 34 recites only “the first part is configured to provide a steady expansion of airflow cross-section.” As the vanes have been interpreted as an element of “the first part,” it does not matter if they come into contact with the second part. As such, Applicant’s argument is also wholly unpersuasive because it, once again, attempts to rely on subject matter and configurations that are not claimed.
Applicant concludes by traversing the rejection of claim 41 as taught by FIGS 25, 26, and paragraphs [0156-157] of Rolston. Applicant wholly ignores the rejection of record to erroneously and summarily conclude that the Office Action fails to show “the second part is removably connected to the first part” as recited by claim 41. Applicant points to no alleged error in Examiner’s analysis of the prior claim language, nor to any alleged error as applied to the instant claims. Instead, Applicant elects to ignore the rejection of record, specifically the rejection as provided on pages 8 and 9, which reinterprets the reference such that it does in fact disclose the subject matter of claim 41. The argument is, additionally, mooted by the fact that the present amendments require a new grounds of rejection. An appropriate rejection of claim 41 is provided below.
As discussed above, none of the arguments made by Applicant are persuasive. A new rejection is provided below, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 26-30, 32, 34, 35, 40, and 44-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rolson.
Regarding claim 26, Rolston discloses:
An adaptor to connect a rotating electrical machine to a prime mover, the adaptor comprising:
a first part (FIG 19, portions including 114 and 121) configured to surround a fan (para. [0149]), the first part comprising a plurality of vanes (see FIG 18a, where unlabeled vanes are provided at a top portion of the first part) to define exit paths for airflow from the fan (inherent; as the vanes exist adjacent to apertures in the adaptor, and airflow may exit through said apertures, the vanes inherently form “an exit path” by obstructing an area adjacent to the opening and forcing airflow to exit through the opening); and
a second part (FIG 19, portions including 112 and 122) positioned axially downstream (as shown; Applicant does not define which direction is considered to be “downstream” and, thus, Examiner is free to reasonably interpret either axial direction to be “downstream”) of the first part, the second part comprising a plurality of members (FIG 18a, members 116 are connected to element 112 and, thus, may be considered as “a part of” the second part as recited) to define access windows (FIG 18a, members 116 define, in part, openings 120 which permit access to the fan contained within the adaptor), the access windows to provide access to a rotating component (inherent; openings 120 are not obstructed and, thus, provide access to the fan contained within the adaptor), the rotating component configured for connecting the rotating electrical machine to the prime mover (para. [0099], “[a] shaft passes throught he adaptor in order to connect the rotating parts of the engine and generator” and “[a] fan may be mounted on the shaft inside the adaptor”).
Regarding claim 27, Rolson discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the first part (114, 121) being arranged to connect to the rotating electrical machine (para. [0146]), and the second part is arranged to connect to the prime mover (Id.).
Regarding claim 28, Rolson discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the first and second parts being adjacent to each other in the axial direction (see FIG 19).
Regarding claim 29, Rolson discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the first and second parts, in combination, being arranged to provide a physical connection between the machine and the prime mover (para. [0146]).
Regarding claim 30, Rolson discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the second part being arranged to space the first part axially from the prime mover Page 5 Application/Control Number: 18/880,459 Art Unit: 2834 (see FIG 19; as the second part is located between the first part and the flywheel housing, i.e., “the prime mover,” it may be reasonably interpreted as being arranged to space the first part axially from the prime mover).
Regarding claim 32, Rolson discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 31 and further discloses an access window (e.g., FIG 18A:120) being defined between two adjacent cross members (116) in a substantially circumferential direction (as shown by FIGS 18A and 18B).
Regarding claim 34, Rolson discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the first part being arranged to provide a steady expansion of airflow cross-section (see, e.g., paras. [0037] and [0173]).
Regarding claim 35, Rolson discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses a middle member (FIG 18B:124) arranged to separate the first part and the second part (as shown in FIGS 18A, 18B), and the first part comprises a rear member (114) and a plurality of vanes (vanes include the unlabeled elements affixed to cross members 116 as well Page 6 Application/Control Number: 18/880,459 Art Unit: 2834 as elements B of the annotated FIG) which connect the middle member to the rear member (elements B of annotated figure 18A, below, connect the middle member 124 to the rear member 114; notably, the claim does not require all vanes be connected between the middle and rear members, just that some portion of the plurality does so).
Regarding claim 40, Rolston discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 35 and further discloses the fan comprising a backplate (FIG 19, right-most side of fan 40) and the middle member is substantially aligned with the backplate in the axial direction (as shown by FIG 19).
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Applicant merely recites a rotating electrical machine (claim 44) and a method of assembly (claim 45) relating to the adaptor of claim 26. Rolston discloses the adaptor of claim 26 and, furthermore, discloses a rotating electrical machine (which inherently includes a rotor, a stator, and a stator frame), a fan connected to the electrical machine, and how the elements are assembled. As such, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 26 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 44 and 45.
Regarding claim 46, Rolston discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the first part comprising a rear wall (114) and a middle wall (124) positioned axially downstream of the rear wall (as shown; Applicant does not define which direction is considered to be “downstream” and, thus, Examiner is free to reasonably interpret either axial direction to be “downstream”); and the plurality of vanes positioned between the rear wall and the middle wall (as shown), the vanes connected to the rear wall and the middle wall to define the exit paths (as shown); and the second part comprises a front wall (112) positioned axially downstream of the middle wall (as shown); and the plurality of members (116) positioned between the front wall and the middle wall (as seen by FIG 18B, at least a portion of members 116 exists between vertical planes defined by the front wall and the middle wall, thus the plurality of members are positioned, at least in part, “between the front wall and the middle wall” as recited), the members connected to the front wall (directly, as shown by FIGS 18A and 18B) and the middle wall (indirectly; members 116 are connected to rear wall 114, which is in turn connected to middle wall 124 by the unlabeled cross member between rear wall 114 and middle wall 124) to define access windows (members 116 define, at least in part, access windows 120).
Regarding claim 47, Rolston discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the second part being positioned axially downstream of the fan (see FIG 19).
Regarding claim 48, Rolston discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the vanes being wedge-shaped (see FIG 18A) and at an angle with respect to the radial direction (as shown).
Regarding claim 49, Rolston discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses the vanes having an axial width that is substantially the same as a width of the fan (see annotated FIG 18A above in context of FIG 19, where vanes B of the annotated FIG span openings 121, and the fan is substantially the same axial width as openings 121).
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.
Claim(s) 41 and 43 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolson.
Regarding claim 41, Rolston discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses another alternative embodiment (FIGS 25, 26; paras. [0156-157]) wherein the second part further includes an adaptor ring 136 which is affixed to front part 112. As the embodiment of FIGS 25 and 26 is applicable to “the adaptor,” it may be reasonably understood as being applicable to any of the adaptor embodiments disclosed by Rolston.
Thus, the difference between instant claim 41 and the Rolston may be characterized as making the second part of FIGS 18A, or a portion thereof, separable from the first part. In paragraph [0157], Rolston discloses that the separable adaptor ring 136 is provided so that the adaptor may connect to a variety of differently sized prime movers.
As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the embodiment of FIGS 18-19 by making the second part, or a portion thereof, separable from the first part for the purposes of enabling the adaptor to connect to a variety of differently sized prime movers, as is taught by the alternative embodiment of Rolston.
Regarding claim 43, Rolston discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 26 and further discloses an alternative embodiment (FIG 12) wherein covers (66, 68) are provided for each opening of the adaptor, and wherein at least some covers further comprise a vane (74). Rolston states that these removable covers “can be modified to suit different ingress protection ratings,” thereby implying that the covers are included to provide ingress protection.
Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the embodiment of Rolston rejected in claim 26 above by further providing covers as disclosed in the embodiment of FIG 12 for the purposes of providing or otherwise increasing ingress protection for the adaptor as contemplated by paragraph [0132] of Rolston.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36, 38, and 42 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: as amended, the prior art of record (taken alone or in reasonable combination with others) fails to disclose the subject matter of claims 36, 38, and 42.
With respect to claim 36, the amendments to claim 26 overcome the alternative interpretation of claim 26 on which the previous rejection of claim 36 was based. As such, the subject matter of claim 26 is no longer anticipated or rendered obvious by Rolston. After further search and consideration, Examiner is unable to find any references that teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the subject matter of instant claim 36. The claim would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (26) and any intervening claims (35).
With respect to claim 38, the amendments to claim 26 overcome the alternative interpretation of claim 26 on which the previous rejection of claim 38 was based. As such, the subject matter of claim 26 is no longer anticipated or rendered obvious by Rolston. After further search and consideration, Examiner is unable to find any references that teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the subject matter of instant claim 38. The claim would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (26) and any intervening claims (35).
With respect to claim 42, the amendments to the claim overcome the previous rejection. As amended, the adaptor further includes “at least one section defining at least one of the access windows, the at least one section [being] removable to improve access” to the rotating component. The prior rejection relies on express teachings of Rolston to make a portion of angled surface 122 removable; however, angled surface 122 does not define, alone or in combination with other elements, any of the access windows as disclosed by Rolston. Thus, the disclosure of Rolston is no longer adequate to render the subject matter of amended claim 42 obvious. The claim would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (26) and any intervening claims (none).
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 THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights