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 .
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) 1-2, 8-10, 12, 18, 24, 26-27, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alexander (WO 2007/059305).
Regarding claim 1, Alexander discloses a fluid sprayer, the fluid sprayer comprising:
a pump (16) that outputs fluid under pressure (Paragraphs 14-15);
a spray gun (54) that sprays fluid output from the pump (Paragraph 17);
an electric motor (14) having a rotor (28) that rotates about a first axis (Figure 3 depicts the axis about which the rotor rotates);
a drive (42) that receives rotational motion output by the electric motor to operate the pump (Paragraph 42);
a frame (20) that supports the pump and the electric motor (Paragraph 12); and
a fan assembly (22) that generates a flow of cooling fluid that cools the motor (Paragraph 13), the fan assembly having a blade structure (18) that rotates on a second axis, the second axis non-coaxial with the first axis (Figure 2, the axis of the blade structure is above the first axis).
Regarding claim 2, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 1, wherein the first axis is transverse to the second axis (Figure 1, The axes are parallel).
Regarding claim 8, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the fan assembly is located directly vertically below the electric motor.
The assembly is arranged above the electric motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the fan assembly directly below the electric motor since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the fan assembly (22) is mounted on the frame independent of the pump and the electric motor (Figure 2, the fan assembly mounted on the frame by the rear end 24).
Regarding claim 10, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 1, wherein the fan assembly is mounted within a duct (24) at least partially defined by the frame (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 10, wherein the duct (24) is open radially outward relative to the first axis such that a flow of cooling fluid generated by the fan assembly flows radially towards the first axis (Paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 18, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 1, wherein the electric motor is located within a chamber (Figure 1, the motor is in a chamber inside the body), the fan assembly blows cooling fluid into the chamber, and the cooling fluid exhausts from the chamber via a vent (26) (Paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 24, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 18, wherein the vent is oriented to exhaust heated cooling fluid longitudinally away from the pump (Paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 26, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 18, wherein the chamber is bounded by a first wall (Front wall), a second wall (26), a pair of lateral walls (The side walls beneath sides 26), a floor (bottom wall), and a ceiling (top wall) (Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 27, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 26, wherein the first wall is formed by the frame (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 65, Alexander discloses a fluid sprayer, the fluid sprayer comprising:
a pump (16) that outputs fluid under pressure (Paragraphs 14-15);
a spray gun (54) that sprays fluid output from the pump (Paragraph 17);
an electric motor (14) having a rotor (28) that rotates about a first axis (Figure 3);
a drive (42) that receives rotational motion output by the electric motor to operate the pump (Paragraph 42);
a frame (20) that supports the pump and the electric motor (Paragraph 12);
a fan assembly(22) that generates a flow of cooling fluid that cools the motor (Paragraph 13), the fan assembly (18) having a blade structure that rotates on a second axis (Figure 2, the axis of the blade structure is above the first axis); and
a cooling circuit having a chamber within which the electric motor is at least partially disposed, a cooling inlet configured to provide cooling fluid from the fan assembly to the chamber (Paragraph 13), and a cooling outlet (26) configured to output heated cooling fluid from the chamber (Paragraph 13).
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) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander in view of Fransden (WO 9114517).
Regarding claim 3, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the first axis is orientated orthogonal to the second axis, or wherein the second axis is orientated within 10 degrees of vertical.
Frandsen discloses a device wherein an air supply (74) is oriented at an angle relative to a motor (6) (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the fan axis at an angle relative to the motor, as the configurations were known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of structure to ensure air circulation to the motor in a system where the supply orientation is not a critical element.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle of the fan axis would result in a difference in function of the Alexander in view of Frandsen device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the axis of Alexander in view of Frandsen, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating various acceptable angular orientations ([page 7, lines 23-32]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to have the first axis orientated orthogonal to the second axis, or the second axis orientated within 10 degrees of vertical, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the duct projects vertically downward.
Frandsen discloses a device wherein an air supply (74) projects vertically downward relative to a motor (6) (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the fan projecting downward relative to the motor, as the configurations were known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of structure to ensure air circulation to the motor in a system where the supply orientation is not a critical element.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander.
Regarding claim 8, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the fan assembly is located directly vertically below the electric motor.
The assembly is arranged above the electric motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the fan assembly directly below the electric motor since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 19, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 18, but fails to disclose wherein the vent is located above the electric motor and the fan assembly is located below the electric motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the vent and fan as claimed since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 28 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander in view of Warren (EP 3088007).
Regarding claim 28, Alexander discloses the fluid sprayer of claim 26, but fails to disclose wherein the second wall is formed by a heatsink.
Warren discloses a device wherein a heatsink (132) forms a (discharge) wall of a fan discharge chamber (Figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexaner with the disclosures of Warren, replacing the discharge wall (second wall) of Alexander with a heatsink (Warren, 132), in order to provide for structure that draws heat away from other heat-generating components of the device, as disclosed by Warren (Paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 79, Alexander discloses a fluid sprayer, the fluid sprayer comprising:
a pump (16) that outputs fluid under pressure (Paragraphs 14-15);
a spray gun (54) that sprays fluid output from the pump (Paragraph 17);
an electric motor (14) having a rotor (28) that rotates about a first axis (Figure 3);
a drive (42) that receives rotational motion output by the electric motor to operate the pump (Paragraph 42);
a frame (20) that supports the pump and the electric motor (Paragraph 12);
a fan assembly(22) that generates a flow of cooling fluid that cools the motor (Paragraph 13), the fan assembly (18) having a blade structure that rotates on a second axis (Figure 2, the axis of the blade structure is above the first axis),but fails to disclose a heatsink forming at least one wall of the chamber, the heatsink exposed to the flow of cooling fluid generated by the fan assembly.
Warren discloses a device wherein a heatsink (132) forms a (discharge) wall of a fan discharge chamber (Figure 2A), the heatsink exposed to the flow of cooling fluid generated by the fan assembly (Paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexaner with the disclosures of Warren, replacing the discharge wall of Alexander with a heatsink (Warren, 132), the heatsink exposed to the flow of cooling fluid generated by the fan assembly (Warren, Figure 2A), in order to provide for structure that draws heat away from other heat-generating components of the device, as disclosed by Warren (Paragraph 39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-30 and 33 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights