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 .
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1-5 are rejected below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests including the fan and it being submerged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qandil (U.S. Pat. 6,183,208).
As to claim 4, Qandil teaches a method of controlling a fan motor that causes a fan to rotate for blowing air to an object to be cooled, the method comprising steps of:
determining whether the fan motor is submerged; and causing the fan motor to operate after eliminating a submergence of the fan motor in response to determination that the fan motor is submerged (col. 5 line 6 6- col. 6 line 26 - As with the previous embodiments, it is generally not desirable for the fan and fan motor to continue operating when the system is immersed. When the system is immersed, the liquid surrounding the sealed housing generally provides adequate cooling, and the increased drag on the fan motor as a result of the fan running in water may overload and damage the fan motor. Accordingly, a switching device such as float switch 127 may be provided to shut off the fan motor when the system is operated in an immersed state. Alternatively, a fuse or breaker may be provided in the fan motor's electrical circuit. When the fan is immersed, the increased drag causes the motor to draw more current, and the fuse or breaker shuts off the motor when the current exceeds a predetermined threshold. As a further alternative, a moisture-sensing switch or any other suitable means may be used to cause the fan motor to shut off when the system is immersed. Similar to the torque-reducing arrangement of the previous embodiments, the shut-off capability eliminates unnecessary and potentially dangerous fan drag while allowing the pump or other device driven by the motor to continue to operate in an immersed condition. Because it is normally not desirable for the fan to continue operating while immersed, fan motor 122 does not need to be provided with seals which allow immersed operation. This saves on manufacturing costs. However, a waterproof motor may be used, i.e., a motor that is not damaged by total immersion and that can resume operating after withdrawn from a immersed state) .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qandil (U.S. Pat. 6,183,208) in view of Ohshita (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0050720).
As to claim 1, Qandil teaches configured to determine whether the fan motor is submerged and to cause the fan motor to operate after eliminating a submergence of the fan motor in response to determination that the fan motor is submerged (col. 5 line 6 6- col. 6 line 26 - As with the previous embodiments, it is generally not desirable for the fan and fan motor to continue operating when the system is immersed. When the system is immersed, the liquid surrounding the sealed housing generally provides adequate cooling, and the increased drag on the fan motor as a result of the fan running in water may overload and damage the fan motor. Accordingly, a switching device such as float switch 127 may be provided to shut off the fan motor when the system is operated in an immersed state. Alternatively, a fuse or breaker may be provided in the fan motor's electrical circuit. When the fan is immersed, the increased drag causes the motor to draw more current, and the fuse or breaker shuts off the motor when the current exceeds a predetermined threshold. As a further alternative, a moisture-sensing switch or any other suitable means may be used to cause the fan motor to shut off when the system is immersed. Similar to the torque-reducing arrangement of the previous embodiments, the shut-off capability eliminates unnecessary and potentially dangerous fan drag while allowing the pump or other device driven by the motor to continue to operate in an immersed condition. Because it is normally not desirable for the fan to continue operating while immersed, fan motor 122 does not need to be provided with seals which allow immersed operation. This saves on manufacturing costs. However, a waterproof motor may be used, i.e., a motor that is not damaged by total immersion and that can resume operating after withdrawn from a immersed state).
Qandil teaches most of the claimed invention, but doesn’t specifically teach that this is done with a processor. Examiner notes that automating a known processes with a general purpose computer is not non-obvious and normally would not be patent on it own. Furthermore, Examiner has shown below that it is known to monitor current supply (as shown in Qandil) with a processor to control a fan and is down by Ohshita.
As to claims 1 and 5, Ohshita teaches A control apparatus that controls a fan motor casing a fan to rotate for blowing air to an object to be cooled[0004], the control apparatus comprising a processor (element 126) , and a memory unit (element 131), wherein the processor is configured to control the fan [0011,0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Ohshita into the system and method of Qandil prior to the effective filing date. The motivation to combine is that Oshita teaches [t]he fan system according to the first example embodiment causes, when a supply current supplied from a power supply device to a fan exceeds a threshold value, the FET to perform an operation in a direction of cutting off the supply current to the fan. Thus, the fan system makes it possible to suppress the overcurrent [0056].
As to claim 2, Ohshita teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the fan motor is submerged based on a current value and a rotation frequency of the fan motor[0056].
As to claim 3, Qandil teaches is configured to continuously operate the fan motor, after eliminating the submergence of the fan motor, until water drops adhered to a rotor of the fan motor are scattered (col. 6 lines 23-26 interpreted as withdrawn from an immersed state).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior artreference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It iswell settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in theart. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant'sclaim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a singleprior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, todemonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specificlimitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038,1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319,1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Other art of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Paul (U.S. Pat. 6,484,527) teaches shutting off a fan is the fan is completely immersed.
Tung (U.S. PG Pub. 2019/0159359) teaches a sensing processor turns off the immersion cooling apparatus for protection until the aforesaid cooling parameter is adjusted back to normal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights