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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, line 6 through page 8, line 2, filed April 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, the limitation appears to be contradictory regarding the phase current and rotation speed of the fan, and therefore rejections under 35 USC 112 will be put forth below.
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.
Claims 1-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 is non-enabling because one having ordinary skill in the art could not make or use the invention from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. An analysis of the Wands factors reveals that the following factors weigh against enablement: the nature of the invention, the amount of direction provided by the inventor, and the quantity of experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP §2164.01(a). It is noted that the determination of undue experimentation is reached by weighing all the factors and that no single factor is dispositive (MPEP §2164.01(a)).
Claim 1, lines 12-14 refer to the processor being configured to monitor “an increase in a variation of a phase current flowing through a motor driving the fan, while controlling a rotation speed of the fan to be constant”.
Regarding the nature of the invention and the amount of direction provided by the inventor, paragraph 36 of the applicant’s specification states “when a variation of the speed of the fan 6 increases, the variation of the phase current flowing through the motor 7 that drives the fan 6 also increases”. The claim states the opposite: that the phase current variation can increase while the rotation speed of the fan is constant.
Figure 6 shows a variation in speed is associated with the phase current change as well. The inventor has not provided an explanation for how to monitor a variation in phase current while controlling the rotation speed of the fan to be constant.
Upon the weight of all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled by the originally filed disclosure to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation and therefore claim 1 is not enabled.
Claim 19, lines 10-12 recite the same limitations and raise the same issues. Therefore, claim 19 is considered non-enabled for the same reason.
Claims 2-11 and 16-18 depend from claim 1 and contains its limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and states the phenomenon is a change in a rotation speed of the fan, which contradicts the rotation speed being constant of claim 1. The contradictory limitations make it unclear how to make and use the invention, which render claim 5 non-enabled for the same reason.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 16-19 are 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.
Claim 1, lines 12-14 refer to the processor being configured to monitor “an increase in a variation of a phase current flowing through a motor driving the fan, while controlling a rotation speed of the fan to be constant”, and as stated above, it is unclear how the phase current can have variations while the rotation speed of the fan is constant.
Claim 1, line 14 recites “to detect a state of the structure such as clogging” which raises two issues. First, line 8 previously introduces “a state of the structure”, and it is unclear if line 14 is referring to a separate “state of the structure” or the same feature. Second, the phrase “such as clogging” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is required or is merely exemplary language. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-11 and 16-18 depend from claim 1 and contains its limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 19, lines 10-12 recite the same limitations and therefore is considered indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 5 states the phenomenon is a change in a rotation speed of the fan, however claim 1 previously states the processor controls the rotation speed of the fan to be constant, and it is unclear how the rotation speed can be constant and change.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are allowed.
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding claims 1-11 and 16-19, while the claims have not been rejected over prior art, a determination regarding patentability is not possible at this time. Please refer to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) as set forth above. A determination regarding patentability will be revisited in light of any arguments and/or amendment made by applicant in response to this action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights