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 preliminary amendment to the specification dated 1/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description:
50 referring to a printed circuit board as seen in paragraph [11].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology in the form of the word “means.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 line 4 the phrase “the outer circumference of a fitting hole” should instead be “an outer circumference of the fitting hole” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 recites the claim limitation of “a rotor separation preventing and shock absorbing means” in line 10 which shall be interpreted to mean “a body of a washer shape having a fitting hole formed in the center; and upper and lower vibration isolating members coupled to the top and bottom surfaces of the body” as detailed in paragraph [12].
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.
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.
Claim 4 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fitting protrusion 82A of the upper vibration isolating member 82" in lines 2-3 and “the fitting protrusion 83A of the lower vibration isolating member 83” in lines 3-4. The fitting protrusion of the upper vibration isolating member and the fitting protrusion of the lower vibration isolating member are disclosed in claim 3 wherein claim 4 depends on claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this shall be taken to read “a fitting protrusion 82A of the upper vibration isolating member 82” and “a fitting protrusion 83A of the lower vibration isolating member 83” respectively.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 2 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 recites the claim limitation of “wherein the rotor separation preventing and shock absorbing means 80 comprises a body 81 of a washer shape having a fitting hole 81’ formed in the center; and upper and lower vibration isolating members 82, 83 coupled to the top and bottom surfaces of the body 81.” All of these features are already claimed in claim 1 with the means-plus-function limitation of “a rotor separation preventing and shock absorbing means” referring to those features in paragraph [12].
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0175696 to Jang et al. (hereinafter Jang) in view of Japanese Patent No. H07-22129 to Shuji and Chinese Patent No. 210074975 to Fu (provided by Applicant on 1/16/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a fan motor (FIG. 1, M) comprising: a rotor (FIG. 1, 10) formed by insert injection molding (Paragraph [0036]) in a shaft (FIG. 1, 30), rotating together with the shaft; a stator (FIG. 1, 20) installed to be oriented towards the rotor; an upper insulator constituting the stator and upper and lower insulators (FIG. 2; 21, 23) coupled to the upper and lower parts of a core (FIG. 2, 22) of the stator; a motor bracket (FIG. 2, 80) coupling the upper and lower insulators (Paragraph [0036]) and a printed circuit board (FIG. 2, 50); and a sleeve bearing (FIG. 8, 40) installed inside a fitting protrusion (FIG. 2, 81) protruding from a center of the motor bracket.
Jang does not teach a rotor separation preventing and shock absorbing means comprising a body of a washer shape having a fitting hole formed in the center; and upper and lower vibration isolating members coupled to the top and bottom surfaces of the body fitted to an annular groove having a recessed shape in the lower end of the shaft inserted into the sleeve bearing.
However, Shuji teaches a rotor separation preventing and shock absorbing means comprising a body of a washer shape having a fitting hole formed in the center (FIG. 1, 11; Paragraph [0013]) fitted to an annular groove having a recessed shape in the lower end of the shaft (FIG. 1, 2) inserted into a sleeve bearing (FIG. 1, 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan motor of Jang with the teachings of Shuji to provide a rotor separation preventing and shock absorbing means to the shaft to further help axially locate the shaft (Paragraph [0013]).
Jang in view of Shuji does not teach upper and lower vibration isolating members coupled to the top and bottom surfaces of the body.
However, Shuji teaches upper (FIG. 2, 22) and lower (FIG. 2, 24) vibration isolating members (Paragraph [0025]) coupled to the top and bottom surfaces of a body (FIG. 2, 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan motor of Jang in view of Shuji with the teachings of Fu to provide upper and lower vibration isolating members to the body as it reduces the noise during operation of the motor (Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Jang in view of Shuji and Fu teaches the fan motor of claim 1, wherein Fu further teaches the rotor separation preventing and shock absorbing means comprising a body (FIG. 2, 23) of a washer shape having a fitting hole formed in the center; and upper (FIG. 2, 22) and lower (FIG. 2, 24) vibration isolating members (Paragraph [0025]) coupled to the top and bottom surface of the body.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Shuji and Fu and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0180911 to Kaneko et al. (hereinafter Kaneko).
Regarding claim 3, Jang in view of Shuji and Fu teaches the fan motor of claim 2, wherein Fu further teaches a fitting hole (FIG. 2, 3) formed through between the outer circumference of a fitting hole of the body and the outer edge of the body.
Jang in view of Shuji and Fu does not teach a fitting protrusion of the upper vibration isolating member and a fitting protrusion of the lower vibration isolating member being fitted and coupled to the fitting hole.
However, Kaneko teaches a vibration isolating member (FIG. 7, 36) having a fitting protrusion (FIG. 7, 36b) fitted and coupled to a fitting hole (FIG. 7, 54b) of a rotor support portion (FIG. 7, 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan motor of Jang in view of Shuji and Fu with the teachings of Kaneko to provide a fitting protrusion to the vibration isolating member so that the vibration isolating member can be fitted to the body without additional hardware like a bolt.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Shuji and Fu and in further view of Jang in view of Shuji and Fu and in further view of Kaneko and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0007127 to Hong et al. (hereinafter Hong; cited by Applicant on 1/16/2025).
Regarding claim 4, Jang in view of Shuji and Fu teaches the fan motor of claim 2.
Jang in view of Shuji and Fu does not teach a noise absorbing member being installed between a fitting protrusion of the upper vibration isolating member and a fitting protrusion of the lower vibration isolating member.
However, Kaneko teaches a vibration isolating member (FIG. 7, 36) having a fitting protrusion (FIG. 7, 36b) fitted and coupled to a fitting hole (FIG. 7, 54b) of a rotor support portion (FIG. 7, 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan motor of Jang in view of Shuji and Fu with the teachings of Kaneko to provide a fitting protrusion to the vibration isolating member so that the vibration isolating member can be fitted to the body without additional hardware like a bolt.
Jang in view of Shuji, Fu, and Kaneko does not teach a noise absorbing member being installed between the fitting protrusions.
However, Hong teaches a noise absorbing member (FIG. 3, 41) being installed on the surface of a sleeve bearing for a shaft (Paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan motor of Jang in view of Shuji, Fu, and Kaneko with the teachings of Hong to provide a noise absorbing member between the fitting protrusions to further provide vibration and shock absorption to the body.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Shuji and Fu and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 110350686 to Hatano.
Regarding claim 5, Jang in view of Shuji and Fu teaches the fan motor of claim 2.
Jang in view of Shuji and Fu does not teach the body being formed integrally with the upper and lower vibration isolating members by insert injection molding.
However, Hatano teaches a washer (FIG. 5, 101) being formed integrally with upper and lower vibration isolating members (FIG. 5; 100, 102) by insert injection molding (Paragraph [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan motor of Jang in view of Shuji and Fu with the teachings of Hatano to integrally form the body with the vibration isolating members by insert injection molding to fabricate a more resilient washer design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights