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 amendment filed March, 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of the Applicant's amendment to the title.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species A, Figures 1-3, claims 1-4 and species B, Figures 4-6, claim 5. The species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species. Newly submitted claim 5 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed because claim 5 recites species A wherein the at least one magnet is located below the bearing, while previously rejected claim 1 recites species B wherein the at least one magnet is located above the bearing. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) and additional examination time.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 5 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2005/0275299 to Horng in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2016/0312826 to Kawashima.
Referring to claim 1, Horng teaches a fan device, comprising:
a frame (20, 100), comprising a base (100) and a bearing seat (20), wherein the bearing seat (20) protrudes from the base (100) and has an accommodation space (Figures 2-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; paragraphs [0029]-[0033]);
a stability maintenance assembly, disposed in the accommodation space (through hole inside 20) and comprising a bearing (21) and at least one magnet (40) which are arranged coaxially, wherein the at least one magnet (40) is located above the bearing (21) (Figures 2-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; paragraphs [0029]-[0033]);
a shaft (31), disposed through the at least one magnet (40) and the bearing (21) so as to be rotatable relative to the frame (20, 100) (Figures 2-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; paragraphs [0029]-[0033]);
an impeller (30) (rotor 30 is shown as an impeller in Figures 2 and 3, having blades in the same way as impeller 30 of the prior art fan shown in Fig. 1 and described in paragraph [0004]), fixed to the shaft (31) so as to be rotatable relative to the frame (20, 100) via the shaft (31) and the bearing (21) (Figures 2-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; paragraphs [0029]-[0033]); and
a driving assembly, comprising a stator (10) and a rotor (32), wherein the stator (10) is sleeved on the bearing seat (20) of the frame (20, 100), the rotor (32) is mounted on the impeller (30) and surrounds the stator (10), and the driving assembly is configured to drive the impeller (30) to rotate relative to the frame (20, 100) (Figures 2-4, Fig. 2 annotated below; paragraphs [0029]-[0033]).
[AltContent: textbox (Accommodation Space)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
556
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Horng Figure 3.
Horng teaches that the magnet 40 causes a magnetization of the shaft 31, but is silent as to the bearing. Kawashima teaches a device wherein:
a shaft (113), disposed through at least one magnet (61A, 61B) and a bearing (20), the bearing (20) being magnetized by the at least one magnet (61A, 61B) (Figures 4 and 5; paragraphs [0107] and [0108]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the fan device taught by Horng with the bearing magnetization magnets and bearing magnetization taught by Kawashima in order to prevent seizure or levitation in the bearing and to provide stability to the bearing. Kawashima paragraphs [0019] and [0108].
Referring to claim 4, Horng and Kawashima teach a fan device comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Horng does not teach a magnet comprising a plurality of magnets. Kawashima further teaches a fan device wherein:
the at least one magnet (61A, 61B) comprises a plurality of magnets (61A, 61B) arranged around the shaft (113) (Figures 4 and 5; paragraphs [0107] and [0108]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the fan device taught by Horng with the plurality of magnets taught by Kawashima because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the magnets of Kawashima, for another, the magnet of Horng, to obtain predictable results, the stability and balance, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2005/0275299 to Horng in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2016/0312826 to Kawashima and U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0305627 to Yoshino.
Referring to claim 2, Horng and Kawashima teach a fan device comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach a wear resistant gasket. Yoshino teaches a fan device comprising:
a wear-resistant gasket (161), wherein the wear-resistant gasket (161) is clamped between the shaft (12) and the base (111) of the frame (11), and a hardness of the wear-resistant gasket (161) is greater than a hardness of the frame (11) (Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0038] and [0051], wherein since the base 111 is made of resin and the wear-resistant gasket 161 is made of iron, the wear-resistant gasket 161 has a greater hardness).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the fan device taught by Horng with the wear-resistant gasket taught by Yoshino in order to prevent wear of the base.
Referring to claim 3, Horng, Kawashima and Yoshino teach a fan device comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but Horng and Kawashima do not teach a fastener. Yoshino further teaches a fan device wherein:
a stability maintenance assembly comprises a fastener (19), the fastener (19) is clamped between the bearing (13) and the frame (11) and circumferentially fixed to the shaft (12) so as to limit a movement of the shaft (12) along an axial direction of the shaft (12) (Figures 1-4; paragraph [0044], wherein the retainer is fixed to the shaft axially in groove 121).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the fan device taught by Horng with the fastener taught by Yoshino in order to limit axial movement of the shaft. Yoshino paragraph [0044].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March, 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Horng already has a magnetically conductive element 50 and that in spite of this, Horng does not teach a bearing that is magnetized. Remarks 2. The Applicant further argues that adding magnets does not necessarily make the magnet magnetized because it could be a non-magnetically conductive bearing. Remarks 2. The Applicant further explains that there is no teaching that the magnet 40 of Horng could be designed in a way that its magnetic field attracts the bearing 21. Remarks 2. The Applicant argues that the only motivation for this combination would be hindsight reasoning. Remarks 2. The Applicant explains that it would not be obvious to substitute the bearing 21 with a magnetically conductive material. Remarks 2.
However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Horng is not relied upon for the teaching of a magnetically conductive bearing, simply adding magnets to make it so, or any other modifications based solely on the teachings of Horng. Kawashima is relied upon for the teaching of a magnetized bearing as recited in the claims. One of ordinary skill in the would understand that in order for the bearing magnetization magnets to operate as intended when combined with Horng, as detailed above, that the bearing itself would have to be magnetizable also. The Applicant has presented arguments as to why Horng fails to teach the claimed bearing magnetization, which the Examiner has addressed above, but made no arguments as to why the combination of Horng and Kawashima fails to teach this limitation. As detailed above, it would have been obvious to modify the fan device taught by Horng with the bearing magnetization magnets and bearing magnetization taught by Kawashima in order to prevent seizure or levitation in the bearing and to provide stability to the bearing. Kawashima paragraphs [0019] and [0108].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights