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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 02/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/18/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, the phrase “housing configured… to include an opening” is not clear if the housing has an opening or is “configured” to include an opening”. Examiner is interpreting the housing as having an opening.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC § 112 6th paragraph-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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
control portion in claims 1-2 and 10. Claims 1-2 and 10 recite “controller provided with a control portion configured to control driving of the motor…wherein the controller has a plate shape with an outer shape size maximized when being viewed in a first direction”
circulating portion claim 10. Claim 10 recites “a circulating portion, a position of which in the first direction is between the controller and the fan and is arranged not to overlap the air passage when being viewed in the first direction”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
To clarify the associated structure gleaned from the specification is considered:
control portion in claims 1-2 and 10 is considered a “control unit 38 includes a case 42 and a substrate portion 51… control unit 38 has a plate shape”, “control unit 205 includes a control substrate 205A… control unit 205 has a plate shape” and “An outer shape of the control unit 38 when being viewed in the front-back direction is an octagonal shape (a rectangular shape, four corners of which are cut)” - (paras. 0016, 0070 of originally filed specification) or equivalents electronics (i.e. shunt resistors, capacitor, microcomputer and etc.) as described in the specification.
circulating portion claim 10 is considered a “circulating portion 77”, “circulating portion 209” (paras. 0034, 0071 of originally filed specification) or equivalents (rib/protrusion/wall) as described in the specification.
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(s) 1-10 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term/phrase “controller has a plate shape with an outer shape size maximized when being viewed in a first direction” in claims 1-2 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It appears applicant intends for the “plate shape” that is “maximized” to be the “octagonal shape (a rectangular shape, four corners of which are cut)” recited in the specification [0016, 0070]? Also, in claims 1-2 and 10, the phrase “has a plate shape” has a plurality of meanings (circular dish, smooth flat thin piece of material, thin coating, film, bowl, cover, and etc.) which also makes the said term/phrase confusing. In general, the directions claimed (first, second, third) are confusing absent any defined origin (axis/axes) or relative structure.
Examiner suggest reciting an axis (i.e. longitudinal axis) of the device to base directions from. The claimed directions are difficult to follow/limit absent relative structure and/or an axis to base directions from. Moreover, the claimed airflow directions are arbitrary absent structure and/or an axis. For example, airflow through a tubular structure will at least to some degree flow in all three directions, especially if there is some partition/screen such as MIYAZAWA et al. (US 20190358769 A1) support member 130, but if the tube bends/curves the airflow changes directions or a partition/wall protruding perpendicular to the wall will change direction of the airflow. Since the claims generally discuss the air flow directions (air passage… flows from one side to the other side) and “wall arranged at one side of the air passage” provides very little structure making it unclear what structure is being claimed and what the directions are limited to.
The term/phrase “in an assumption” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “assumption” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What structure is the “assumption” based off of? Directions are not a structural feature and the phrase “directions crossing each other when being viewed in the first direction are a second direction and a third direction” is not clear what orientation these directions are limited to and since “assumed” the directions are not positively claimed. Examiner suggest defining an axis/axes and/or relative structure to define an origin to give meaning to a plurality of directions (i.e. first direction, second direction, and third direction).
Claim 3 recites repeats the limitation "an air passage" and “a limitation wall” as in claim 1. Is "an air passage" the same "an air passage" from claim 1? It is not clear if "an air passage" is another/second different air passage or the same air passage as recited in claim 1 and likewise for “a limitation wall”. If the air passage and limitation of claim 3 is directed to the air passage in claim one then the phrases "an air passage" and “a limitation wall” should be recited - - the air passage - - and - - the limitation wall - -. Also, in claim 3, the last phrase “the wall” is confusing as to whether “the wall” is directed to the limitation wall or the “a wall erected from an inner wall of the housing” from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the third direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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 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) 1-3, 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MIYAZAWA et al. (US 20190358769 A1).
Regarding claims 1, MIYAZAWA et al. discloses a working machine (101) comprising: a motor (105); a controller (241 [0063]) provided with a control portion (176/230/240 [0073-0076]) configured to control driving of the motor; a fan (106) configured to generate airflow when receiving a driving force of the motor; and
a housing (200) configured to house the motor, the controller, and the fan and to include an opening (intake port side, hollow housing open on both ends, [0085-0087], figs. 10-18),
wherein the controller (241) has a plate shape with an outer shape size maximized when being viewed in a first direction (coaxial motor axis A1 direction, figs. 10-11), and is arranged between the opening (figs. 10-11) and the fan (106) in the first direction (figs. 10-11 and 17-18),
the working machine further includes: an air passage to be a passage (airflow arrows shown, airflow through windows 212, air flow windows 137a and 137b, 156 in axis A1 direction in figs. 10-15) in which air flow flows from one side to the other side of the controller in the first direction (arrows flow path cross from one side of the circuit board 241 controller to the other and rails/grooves 208/207/209 and/or ribs 211, screw bosses 206 will cause air change directions on other side of controller, fig. 10);
a limitation wall (130 with cylindrical ribs 135 on cylindrical rim and plurality of ribs 136a and 136b) arranged at one side of the air passage (figs. 10) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and configured to limit the air flow (ribs/rim and portions of the ribs extend radially orthogonal to motor axis/arrow directions, figs. 10-11 and 17-18); and
a wall (rails/grooves 208/207/209 and/or ribs 211, screw bosses 206) erected from an inner wall of the housing (fig. 14), provided at the other side (“other side” – ribs/walls on both sides of 241) in the second direction to overlap the controller when being viewed in the first direction (since the rails/grooves 208/207/209 and/or ribs 211, screw bosses 206 project from the wall in radial direction they are in the second direction). Also, is another potential wall (partition plate 246 or inner part of the tapered section 203 of the motor housing 200) is provided at the other side (side opposite circuit board 241) in the second direction to overlap the controller when being viewed in the first direction ([0074-0088], figs. 10-18).
MIYAZAWA et al. states: “cooling air flowing from the side upstream from the air flow window 212 can flow not only in the axial direction but also in the radial direction” [0086]
Regarding claim 2, MIYAZAWA et al. discloses a working machine (101) comprising: a motor (105); a controller (241 [0063]) provided with a control portion (176/230/240 [0073-0076]) configured to control driving of the motor; a fan (106) configured to generate airflow when receiving a driving force of the motor; and
a housing (200) configured to house the motor, the controller, and the fan and to include an opening (intake port side, hollow housing open on both ends, [0085-0087], fig. 11),
wherein the controller (241) has a plate shape with an outer shape size maximized when being viewed in a first direction (coaxial motor axis A1 direction, figs. 10-11), and is arranged between the opening (figs. 10-11) and the fan (106) in the first direction (figs. 10-11 and 17-18),
in an assumption that directions crossing each other when being viewed in the first direction are a second direction and a third direction (three directions can be “assumed” – first – A1 direction/axis front to rear, figs. 2-3, second the up down direction, figs. 2-3 also see second direction down as partition plate 246 with vertical plates 246a/b extending down, fig. 15 and the third direction perpendicular to both, left to right as left housing screw bosses 167a to 167b as shown in figs. 13- as typical/common x,y,z coordinates/directions);
the opening (intake port side, hollow housing open on both ends) is adjacent to the controller (241) in the second direction when being viewed in the first direction (intake port side is partitioned with plurality of openings with windows 212 open radial to axial direction, [0086], fig. 14),
the housing (200) is configured to support both ends of the controller in the second direction (21/46 are attached/supported to base 15 via 46a/b),
an air passage (airflow arrows shown, airflow through windows 212, air flow windows 137a and 137b, 156 in axis A1 direction in figs. 10-15) is provided in the housing and positioned on an outside of the controller in the third direction (figs. 10-15), and
a limitation wall (130 with cylindrical ribs 135 on cylindrical rim and plurality of ribs 136a and 136b) configured to limit airflow at one side of the air passage in the second direction (fig. 10) is provided in the housing when being viewed in the first direction ([0074-0088], figs. 10-18).
MIYAZAWA et al. states: “cooling air flowing from the side upstream from the air flow window 212 can flow not only in the axial direction but also in the radial direction” [0086]
Regarding claim 10, MIYAZAWA et al. discloses a working machine (101) comprising: a motor (105); a controller (241 [0063]) provided with a control portion (176/230/240 [0073-0076]) configured to control driving of the motor; a fan (106) configured to generate airflow when receiving a driving force of the motor; and
a housing (200) configured to house the motor, the controller, and the fan and to include an intake port (intake port side of hollow housing open on both ends, [0085-0087], figs. 10-18),
wherein the controller (241) has a plate shape with an outer shape size maximized when being viewed in a first direction (coaxial motor axis A1 direction, figs. 10-11), and is arranged between the opening (figs. 10-11) and the fan (106) in the first direction (figs. 10-11 and 17-18),
the housing (200) includes: an air passage (airflow arrows shown, airflow through windows 212, air flow windows 137a and 137b, 156 in axis A1 direction in figs. 10-15), a position of which in the first direction is arranged to overlap the controller (arrows flow path cross from one side of the circuit board 241 controller to the other, fig. 10 and windows 212 provide radial direction flow [0086]);
a circulating portion (130 with cylindrical ribs 135 on cylindrical rim and plurality of ribs 136a and 136b and windows 212 and rails/grooves 208/207/209 and/or ribs 211, screw bosses 206 will cause air change directions on other side of controller, fig. 10), a position of which in the first direction is between the controller and the fan and is arranged not to overlap the air passage when being viewed in the first direction (130 with cylindrical ribs 135 on cylindrical rim and plurality of ribs 136a and 136b are partitions separated as well as windows 212, figs. 10-14); and
a wall (rails/grooves 208/207/209 and/or ribs 211, screw bosses 206) erected from an inner wall of the housing (fig. 14) to guide airflow having passed through the air passage (airflow arrows shown, airflow through windows 212, air flow windows 137a and 137b, 156 in axis A1 direction in figs. 10-15), toward the circulating portion (130, [0074-0088], figs. 10-18).
Regarding claim 3, MIYAZAWA et al. discloses the opening (intake port side, hollow housing open on both ends) is adjacent to the controller (241) in the second direction when being viewed in the first direction (intake port side is partitioned with plurality of openings with windows 212 open radial to axial direction, [0086], fig. 14),
the housing (200) is configured to support both ends of the controller in the second direction (figs. 10-18),
an air passage (airflow arrows shown, airflow through windows 212, air flow windows 137a and 137b, 156 in axis A1 direction in figs. 10-15), is provided in the housing and positioned on an outside of the controller on both sides in the third direction (figs. 10-15), and
a limitation wall (130 with cylindrical ribs 135 on cylindrical rim and plurality of ribs 136a and 136b) configured to limit airflow at one side of the air passage in the second direction is provided in the housing when being viewed in the first direction (col. 2, lines 40 through col. 5, line 57, figs. 1-6); the wall (rails/grooves 208/207/209 and/or ribs 211, screw bosses 206) is positioned at the other side of the air passage in the second direction when being viewed in the first direction (airflow arrows shown, airflow through windows 212, air flow windows 137a and 137b, 156 in axis A1 direction in figs. 10-15).
Regarding claim 6, MIYAZAWA et al. discloses the fan (106) and the wall (rails/grooves 208/207/209 and/or ribs 211, screw bosses 206) overlap each other when being viewed in the first direction (overlap to some degree as shown fig. 10 with 211 overlapping fan)
Regarding claim 8, MIYAZAWA et al. discloses the housing includes a first housing (201/202) and a second housing (203/204, figs. 11 and 14) which are partitioned (via bearing holder 210 and the ribs 211) at one side and the other side in a second direction crossing the first direction (ribs change directions – form plus sign), and the wall (grooves 209 and/or screw bosses 206) is erected from an inner wall (fig. 14) of the first housing toward the second housing ([0074-0088], figs. 10-18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ray (US 3878809 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ray (US 3878809 A) in view of MACHIDA et al. (JP 2016144856 A).
Regarding claims 1, Ray discloses a working machine (10/12) comprising: a motor (14); a controller (21 SCR) provided with a control portion (22) configured to control driving of the motor; a fan (56) configured to generate airflow when receiving a driving force of the motor; and
a housing (26/15) configured to house the motor, the controller, and the fan and to include an opening (52a/52b and/or air intake and exhaust ports or apertures 40 and 42, aperture sets 42a and 42b),
wherein the controller (21) has a plate shape with an outer shape size maximized when being viewed in a first direction (electrical components/speed controls 21a, 21b are mounted on baffle plates 48a and 48b), and is arranged between the opening (flow channels 52a/52b and/or air intake and exhaust ports or apertures 40 and 42, aperture sets 42a and 42b) and the fan (56) in the first direction (21/48a,b is between the fan 56 and apertures/flow channels, figs. 1-5),
the working machine further includes: an air passage to be a passage (52a/b transferred through the inner spaces 50a, 50b, 51, orifices 62 down through the annular gap 87) in which air flow flows from one side to the other side of the controller in the first direction (“circulating double pass air flow path”);
a limitation wall (78) arranged at one side of the air passage (side above the fan) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and configured to limit the air flow; and
a wall (46a/b) erected from an inner wall of the housing (base 15), provided at the other side (side below the fan) in the second direction to overlap the controller when being viewed in the first direction (46a/b overlap 21/48 a, b, col. 2, lines 40 through col. 5, line 57, figs. 1-6).
“Ray states: “a circulating double pass air flow path. Air passes vertically upward into the power unit 12 through the screened intake ports 42, over the components 21 within the chamber 52 to cool the same, horizontally over the top of the baffle plates 48a, 48b, through the transfer spaces 50, radially into the orifices 62, vertically downward through the annular gap 87 within the motor 14 to cool both the rotor 88 and the stator 89, radially outward through the centrifugal fan 56 and annular orifices 64 and turning downwardly and out of the power unit 12 via exhaust ports 40” (col. 5, line 33-40),
Regarding claim 2, Ray discloses a working machine (10/12) comprising: a motor (14); a controller (21 SCR) provided with a control portion (22) configured to control driving of the motor; a fan (56) configured to generate airflow when receiving a driving force of the motor; and
a housing (26/15) configured to house the motor, the controller, and the fan and to include an opening (52a/52b and/or air intake and exhaust ports or apertures 40 and 42, aperture sets 42a and 42b),
wherein the controller (21) has a plate shape with an outer shape size maximized when being viewed in a first direction (electrical components/speed controls 21a, 21b are mounted on baffle plates 48a and 48b), and is arranged between the opening (flow channels 52a/52b) and the fan (56) in the first direction (21/48a, b is between the fan 56 and apertures/flow channels, figs. 1-5),
in an assumption that directions crossing each other when being viewed in the first direction are a second direction and a third direction (three directions can be assumed – upward/vertical directed flow ports 42/40, 62, and second 62 ports on the round bell housings 58, fig. 2 is two different directions – see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) clarity issues);
the opening (flow channels 52a/52b) is adjacent to the controller (21) in the second direction when being viewed in the first direction (52a/b flow channels opens with/connect to second direction 62),
the housing (26/15) is configured to support both ends of the controller in the second direction (21/46 are attached/supported to base 15 via 46a/b),
an air passage (62) is provided in the housing and positioned on an outside of the controller in the third direction (orifices 62 down through the annular gap 87), and
a limitation wall (48a/b) configured to limit airflow at one side of the air passage in the second direction (direction of 62) is provided in the housing when being viewed in the first direction (col. 2, lines 40 through col. 5, line 57, figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 10, Ray discloses a working machine (10/12) comprising: a motor (14); a controller (21 SCR) provided with a control portion (22) configured to control driving of the motor; a fan (56) configured to generate airflow when receiving a driving force of the motor; and a housing (26/15) configured to house the motor, the controller, and the fan and to include an intake port (air intake and exhaust ports or apertures 40 and 42, aperture sets 42a and 42b),
wherein the controller has a plate shape with an outer shape size maximized when being viewed in a first direction (electrical components/speed controls 21a, 21b are mounted on baffle plates 48a and 48b), and is arranged between the intake port (air intake and exhaust ports or apertures 40 and 42, aperture sets 42a and 42b) and the fan (56) in the first direction (21/48a, b is between the fan 56 and apertures/flow channels, figs. 1-5), and
the housing (26/15) includes: an air passage (flow channels 52a/52b), a position of which in the first direction is arranged to overlap the controller (21); a circulating portion (inner spaces 50a, 50b, 51, orifices 62 down through the annular gap 87), a position of which in the first direction is between the controller and the fan and is arranged not to overlap the air passage when being viewed in the first direction (inner spaces 50a, 50b and/or orifices 62 down through the annular gap 87 do not overlap 52a/b); and
a wall (46a/b) erected from an inner wall of the housing (base 15) to guide airflow having passed through the air passage (flow channels 52a/52b), toward the circulating portion (inner spaces 50a, 50b, 51, orifices 62 down through the annular gap 87, col. 2, lines 40 through col. 5, line 57, figs. 1-6).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 10, In the alternative, if it can be argued that Ray fails to disclose the controller has a plate shape and a wall/limitation wall arranged at one side of the air passage in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and configured to limit the air flow and to guide airflow having passed through the air passage toward the circulating portion -
MACHIDA et al. teaches shear drill (1, figs. 1-9), wrench 100 (figs. 10-11); having a controller with a plate shape (7/control circuit board 72, figs. 1-9 and/or controller 118/120/sub controller 121, figs. 10-11) and a wall/limitation wall (58) arranged at one side of an air passage (77/78A/78B) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (figs. 1-9), and configured to limit the air flow and to guide airflow having passed through the air passage toward the circulating portion (MACHIDA et al. teaches arranging wall 58 and controller (7) in several arrangements to guide air flow onto the controller and the motor and teaches having a motor with a dual fan - upper fan 128/lower fan 129, 128 cools the motor,129 cools controller 118/sub controller 121 with partition 127, ([0009-0045], figs. 1-11).
Given the teachings of Ray to have a controller on a baffle plate with a cooling route circulating around the controller and the motor, it 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 to modify the controller to be a plate shape and a wall/limitation wall arranged at one side of the air passage in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and configured to limit the air flow and to guide airflow having passed through the air passage toward the circulating portion to have a cooling route that cools all the electronics, provide a more compact design of the electronics/controls and motor cooled together in one area and/or for improved circulation of air purposes as taught by MACHIDA et al.
Regarding claim 3, Ray discloses the opening (flow channels 52a/52b) is adjacent to the controller (21) in the second direction when being viewed in the first direction (52a/b flow channels opens with/connect to second direction 62),
the housing (26/15) is configured to support both ends of the controller in the second direction (21/46 are attached/supported to base 15 via 46a/b),
an air passage (62) is provided in the housing and positioned on an outside of the controller on both sides in the third direction (orifices 62 on both sides and route down through the annular gap 87), and
a limitation wall (48a/b) configured to limit airflow at one side of the air passage in the second direction (direction of 62) is provided in the housing when being viewed in the first direction (col. 2, lines 40 through col. 5, line 57, figs. 1-6); the wall (48a/b) is positioned at the other side of the air passage (62) in the second direction when being viewed in the first direction (col. 2, lines 40 through col. 5, line 57, figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 6, Ray discloses the fan (56) and the wall (46a/b) overlap each other when being viewed in the first direction (col. 2, lines 40 through col. 5, line 57, figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Ray discloses the housing includes a first housing (52a) and a second housing (52b) which are partitioned (via motor 14/motor housing 54 and/or 48a/b) at one side and the other side in a second direction crossing the first direction (50/62 changes directions), and the wall is erected from an inner wall (15) of the first housing toward the second housing (col. 2, lines 40 through col. 5, line 57, figs. 1-6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MIYAZAWA et al. (US 20190358769 A1) in view of Patrick (US 20160195097 A1).
Regarding claim 7, MIYAZAWA et al. /modified MIYAZAWA et al. teaches having a motor with a fan but fails to disclose having a first central axis of the motor and a second central axis of the fan are side by side in the first direction.
Patrick teaches a power tool (10) having a first central axis (C) of a motor (240) and a second central axis (B) of a fan (208) are side by side in a first direction and teaches air going through the motor and circulated around in U shape manner to join primary air ([0022-0034], figs. 5-6).
Given the teachings of MIYAZAWA et al. to have a motor with a fan and a cooling route circulating around the controller and the motor, it 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 to modify the motor and fan with having a first central axis of the motor and a second central axis of the fan are side by side in the first direction to transmission assembly with the motor shaft, provide a more compact design of the transmission with motor shaft, and/or for directing air purposes as taught by Patrick.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ray (US 3878809 A) in view of Patrick (US 20160195097 A1) OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE Ray (US 3878809 A) in view of MACHIDA et al. (JP 2016144856 A) and further in view of Patrick (US 20160195097 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ray/modified Ray teaches having a motor with a fan but fails to disclose having a first central axis of the motor and a second central axis of the fan are side by side in the first direction.
Patrick teaches a power tool (10) having a first central axis (C) of a motor (240) and a second central axis (B) of a fan (208) are side by side in a first direction and teaches air going through the motor and circulated around in U shape manner to join primary air ([0022-0034], figs. 5-6).
Given the teachings of Ray to have a motor with a fan and a cooling route circulating around the controller and the motor, it 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 to modify the motor and fan with having a first central axis of the motor and a second central axis of the fan are side by side in the first direction to transmission assembly with the motor shaft, provide a more compact design of the transmission with motor shaft, and/or for directing air purposes as taught by Patrick
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a surgical stapling device comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, a controller that includes: “a first element; and a second element which generates more heat during operation than the first element, and the second element is positioned between a tip of the wall and an inner wall of the second housing when being viewed in the first direction”. Though Ray (US 3878809 A) teaches a having a wall/partition to guide cooling air around a controller and to a motor, there is no teaching for having a controller a wall that overlaps with the motor and controller and the controller with elements having different heat amounts with located at the tip of the wall and an inner wall of the second housing and one of ordinary skill would recognize that arranging the controller with different elements generating different amounts of heat at different locations without having to modify the controller and the supporting walls. Having the efficiency and cooling of the controller with different elements generating different amounts of heat at different locations provides an effective cooling of an electronic and motor area.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent:
ITO et al. (US 20220288762 A1) - working machine 2 having a rib/wall/partition (100) to cool control unit 70 and motor (fig. 7)
JP 2014133302 A- L/U shaped heat dissipation wall members 94/294/394/494/594 on the circuit board 91 with switching elements 93/593 having different heating amounts and arranged at different locations on the walls, figs. (1-40), see form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (EST).
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights