This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 19/040128.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the locator (include a reference number for locator which is mentioned within the specification but does not include a reference) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Trout et al. (Trout) 2020/0141537.
Trout discloses claims:
1. An apparatus for mounting a fan, comprising; a fan mount for supporting the fan, the fan mount comprising a first part (150) movable relative to a second part (130); and a modular restrictor (220 including 200/210) connected to the second part of the fan mount above the first part for restricting the movement of the fan relative to the fan mount, the modular restrictor comprising first (200) and second (210) interconnected portions adapted for engaging the second part.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first part comprises a partially spherical ball (150) and the second part comprises a socket (130) for at least partially receiving the partially spherical ball, the modular restrictor (220/200/210) being positioned in the fan mount for engaging an upper surface of the partially spherical ball.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each portion of the restrictor includes at least one passage (210c, 210b) for receiving a fastener (F).
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one portion of the restrictor includes a channel (210b, 200a).
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each portion of the restrictor includes a locator (200b) for ensuring proper alignment when assembled.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second part comprises at least one stanchion (126), and at least one of the portions of the modular restrictor (210) is adapted for engaging the at least one stanchion.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each portion of the modular restrictor (210) is generally U- shaped in plan view.
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the modular restrictor (200) comprises a resilient material.
9. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the modular restrictor (200/210/220) is adapted for engaging a fastener (F) associated with the fan mount.
10. An apparatus for mounting a fan, comprising: a fan mount for supporting the fan, the fan mount comprising a first part (150) movable relative to a second part (130); and a modular restrictor (200/220/210) positioned above the first part for restricting the movement of the fan relative to the fan mount, the modular restrictor comprising first (200) and second interconnected portions (210) together forming a central passage for allowing a wire or cable to extend into the fan mount.
11. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first part comprises a partially spherical ball (150) and the second part comprises a socket (130) for at least partially receiving the partially spherical ball, the modular restrictor (200/220/210) being positioned in the fan mount for engaging an upper surface of the partially spherical ball.
12. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein each portion of the restrictor (200) includes at least one passage (210a, 210b) for receiving a fastener (F).
13. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein each portion of the restrictor includes a locator (200b) for ensuring proper alignment when assembled.
14. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second part comprises at least one stanchion (126), and at least one of the portions of the modular restrictor (210) is adapted for engaging the at least one stanchion (126).
15. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein at least one portion of the modular restrictor (210) is generally U-shaped in plan view.
16. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the modular restrictor (200) comprises a resilient material (see specification).
17. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein at least one portion of the restrictor includes a channel (210a,210b).
18. A method of controlling sway of a fan relative to a fan mount comprising a first part connected to a support for supporting the fan, the first part (150) being movable relative to a second part (130), comprising: interconnecting first (200) and second portions (210) of a modular restrictor; and positioning the modular restrictor in a position to restrict movement of the first part (150) relative to the second part (130).
19. The method of claim 18, further including the step of passing wiring (cable, wiring) through a passage (200a, 210b) of the modular restrictor (200,210,220).
20. The method of claim 18, further including the step of mounting the fan (10) to a ceiling prior to the positioning step.
21. The apparatus of claim 1, further including a fastener (F) for fastening the first portion (200) of the restrictor to the second portion (210) of the restrictor.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Passage 200c for fastener within 1st portion 200 of restrictor 220)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
616
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Passage 210b for fastener (F) within 2nd portion 210 of restrictor 220)][AltContent: textbox (Passage for fastener (F))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
358
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
384
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 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 closest prior art Trout does not disclose wherein each of the first and second interconnected portions includes at least one passage for receiving a fastener, and wherein each of the first and second interconnected portions includes a locator, the locator comprising an annular projection surrounding the passage on one extension and a corresponding recess surrounding the passage on another extension, the annular projection being received in the corresponding recess when assembled to ensure proper alignment and including all of the other limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the arguments, that
The Office Action maps Trout's cushion (200) and bracket/retainer (210) together to the claimed "modular restrictor comprising first and second interconnected portions adapted for engaging the second part." Office Action at 7-9. That mapping does not disclose the claimed arrangement. The claims require first and second interconnected portions of the modular restrictor itself, not a cushion plus a separate external retainer used to hold the cushion in place.
Trout describes a different structure. Trout discloses that a restrictor (220) "comprises a cushion (200) and a retainer, such as a bracket (210)," where the bracket is "adapted for insertion within a recess in the mount," includes a cavity for receiving the cushion, and "may then pass over the cushion (200)" so that a fastener secures "the bracket (210) and cushion (200) relative to the mount assembly (100)." Trout [0042]-[0046]. Trout's own dependent claims confirm that distinction by separately reciting "a bracket for securing the restrictor to the fan mount" and that "the restrictor is adapted to fit within a cavity of the bracket." Trout claims 7-9. Thus, Trout's bracket is not a second interconnected portion of the restrictor; it is a separate retainer for securing a cushion relative to the fan mount.
the examiner traverses the arguments with the following remarks. The applicant’s representative is directed to Trout’s paragraph (0043) which states, “the restrictor (220) comprises a cushion (200) and a retainer, such as a bracket (210)” which as interpreted by the examiner within the office action as the modular restrictor comprising first (200) and second interconnected portions (210) therefore clearly meeting the applicant’s claim 1, “the modular restrictor comprising a first and second interconnected portions”.
In regards to the arguments, that
Indeed, Trout does not describe the cushion and bracket as interconnected restrictor portions. Rather, Trout states that the restrictor (220) "comprises a cushion (200) and a retainer, such as a bracket (210)," with each element interacting with the mounting assembly to dampen movement. Trout [0042]. The expressly identified function of bracket (210) is therefore as a retainer, not as a second modular restrictor portion interconnected with the cushion.
This distinction is reinforced by Trout's own claims. Trout claim 7 recites "a bracket for securing the restrictor to the fan mount," while Trout claim 8 recites that "the bracket is U-shaped and the restrictor is adapted to fit within a cavity of the bracket." These claims treat the bracket as a separate securing structure for the restrictor, not as an interconnected portion of the restrictor itself. Trout claim 9 similarly recites that the bracket includes a passage for receiving a fastener "for connecting the bracket to the fan mount." Thus, the connection disclosed in Trout is bracket-to-mount retention, not restrictor-to-bracket interconnection.
the examiner traverses the arguments with the following remarks. The applicant’s representative interprets claim 7, which states, “The apparatus of claim 1, further including a bracket for securing the restrictor to the fan mount” and claim 8, which states “wherein the bracket is U-shaped and the restrictor is adapted to fit within a cavity of the bracket” as or can only mean that the “bracket” as claimed is not included in the “restrictor”. This is interpretation by the applicant’s representative is not the only way to interpret the claims of Trout. Trout states within paragraph (0043) that, “the restrictor (220) comprises a cushion (200) and a retainer, such as a bracket (210)” which clearly contradicts the applicant’s representative interpretation of Trout’s claims that the bracket (210) is not included as a part of the restrictor (220). Claim 7 stating “The apparatus of claim 1, further including a bracket for securing the restrictor to the fan mount” and claim 8 stating “wherein the bracket is U-shaped and the restrictor is adapted to fit within a cavity of the bracket” does not mean that the bracket is not included in the restrictor. The claims only state “the bracket for securing the restrictor to the fan mount” within claim 7 and “wherein the bracket is U-shaped and the restrictor is adapted to fit within a cavity of the bracket” within claim 8 which does not negate the fact that “bracket” 210 is a part of the restrictor. This fact is confirmed within Trout’s paragraph 0043 which states that, “the restrictor (220) comprises a cushion (200) and a retainer, such as a bracket (210)” therefore meeting the applicant’s claimed invention. The bracket part (210) of the restrictor, 220 including bracket 210 and cushion 200, is used to hold the cushion part (200) of the restrictor (220 including bracket 210 and cushion 200, see paragraph 0043) within the U-shape area of the bracket part (210) therefore meeting the applicant’s claim invention.
In regards to the arguments, that
Trout's assembly description confirms the absence of the claimed interconnection. Trout states that the cushion (200) is inserted within the mounting assembly, and "[t]he bracket (210) may then pass over the cushion (200)" so that holes in the bracket align with a passage in the cushion and with lateral openings of the socket portion. Trout [0045]. Trout further explains that a fastener may be inserted through those aligned openings "to secure the position of the bracket (210) and cushion (200) relative to the mount assembly." Id. This passage establishes, at most, that the bracket and cushion are each held in position relative to the mount by a common fastener. It does not disclose that the bracket and cushion are interconnected with each other as first and second portions of a modular restrictor.
Because Trout does not disclose first and second interconnected portions of the modular restrictor arranged as required by independent claim 1, does not disclose first and second interconnected portions together forming the central passage required by independent claim 10, and does not disclose the step of "interconnecting first and second portions of a modular restrictor" required by independent claim 18, Trout does not anticipate the independent claims. The dependent claims are patentable for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependency, and the cited dependent-claim features do not cure the missing two-portion modular restrictor arrangement. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 102 rejection of claims 1-20.
the examiner traverses the arguments with the following remarks. Applicant is directed to paragraph 0045 which states,
The bracket (210) may then pass over the cushion (200) and positioned such that holes (210b) in the bracket (210) align with a corresponding passage (200c) in the cushion (200), and also with the lateral openings (128) of the socket portion (130). A fastener (F), such as a bolt, pin, or other cross member, may be inserted through the aligned openings (128) and passage/holes (200c, 210b) to secure the position of the bracket (210) and cushion (200) relative to the mount assembly (100) (and, in particular, to the mount (110)). When the bracket (210) is secured within the socket portion (130) of the mounting assembly (100), it may be substantially flush with the upper surface of the cushion (200) so that a continuous engagement is established.
Trout clearly shows within the figures and states within paragraph 0045 that the cushion 200 of the restrictor 220 is interconnected via direct physical contact or snug engagement with the bracket 210 (paragraph 0043). The bracket 210 sits on top of the cushion 200 resulting in continuous engagement of the bracket 210 and the cushion 200 (respectively second portion 210 of restrictor 210 and first portion 200 of the restrictor). In addition the cushion 200 of the restrictor 220 is also interconnected to the bracket 210 using a fastener (F) extending through the holes/passage 210b in the bracket/second portion 210 of the restrictor and the holes/passage 200c in the cushion/first portion 200 of the restrictor therefore clearly teaching the limitations of the applicant’s claimed invention.
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 KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights