DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 31 March 2025. Claims 1 – 12 are pending and currently being examined.
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 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: “cooling structure” in claim 1, “an electronics pot” in claim 1, “functionally relevant components” in claim 2, “cooling unit” in Claims 3 and 4.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 1, the phrase “which cooling structure” in Line 4 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --said cooling structure--.
In Re Claim 1, the phrase “by way of which a flow is induced” in Line 6 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --the cooling structure induces a flow--.
In Re Claim 1, the phrase “a cooling structure is formed” in Line 4 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --a cooling structure that is formed--.
In Re Claim 8, the phrase “in the region” in Line 5 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --in a region--.
In Re Claim 9, the phrase “leads past radially outside” in Line 2 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --leads past a radially outside--.
In Re Claim 10, the phrase “an external wall” in Line 3 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --another external wall-- because parent claim 1 also has an external wall.
In Re Claim 10, the phrase “through which narrowest flow region the cooling flow is directed” in Lines 4 – 5 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --the cooling flow is directed through the narrowest flow region--.
In Re Claim 10, the phrase “past close to the external wall” would be clearer if replaced with --along said another external wall--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Re Claim 1, the phrase "optionally" in Line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of prior art analysis, the word “optionally” will be deleted.
In Re Claim 1, this claim recites the limitation “the external wall” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --an external wall-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 2, it is not clear what function the limitation “functionally relevant components” in Line 2 refers to, and is therefore indefinite at least because there are several functions related to the fan – such as “structural function” (label 5, Page 7 of spec.), “fluidic function” (label 3, Page 7 of spec), “support{ing} function” / “fastening” function (label 59, Page 8 of spec.) mentioned in the specification. For the purpose of prior art analysis the limitation --winding wires of the stator-- (Page 1 of specification) will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 2, Claim limitation “functionally relevant components” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure because there is no clear linkage between the disclosed structures and the function. As mentioned above, several functions such as “structural function” (label 5, Page 7 of spec.), “fluidic function” (label 3, Page 7 of spec), “support{ing} function” / “fastening” function (label 59, Page 8 of spec.) have been recited in the specification, and it is at least not clear what function is being referred to. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In Re Claim 4, this claim recites the limitation “the separate cooling unit” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --a separate cooling unit-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 6, it is not clear what the word “assigned” means because it is not clear what structural limitation this word imparts, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the word --connected-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 8, this claim recites the limitation “the cooling flow” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --the flow-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 8, the limitation “a flow path for the cooling flow” appears to be a second positive recitation of the same “a flow path” in Claim 1, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --the flow path for the flow-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 10, The term “close to” in Line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of proximity that is represented by this term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of prior art analysis, this term will be deleted.
In Re Claim 10, the term “high velocity” in Line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of variation from normal velocity that is within the scope of the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the term --at a velocity that is higher at the narrowest flow region as compared to the velocity at the beginning of the flow path-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 11, The term “close to” in Line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of proximity that is represented by this term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of prior art analysis, this term will be deleted.
In Re Claim 12, the phrase “A cooling structure” in Line 1 appears to be a second positive recitation of the same phrase in Claim 1, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the phrase “A cooling structure for a fan” will be substituted with --the fan--.
In Re Claim 12, the phrase “an electric motor with a stator” in Lines 1 – 2 appears to be a second positive recitation of the same in Claim 1, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that this phrase will be deleted.
In Re Claim 12, the phrase “having the features related to the cooling structure in Claim 1” appears to be a second positive recitation of the cooling structure that has already been claimed in Claim 1, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that this phrase will be deleted.
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) 1 – 4 and 6 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cahill (US Patent 6,599,105 B1).
In Re Claim 1, Figure 4 of Cahill discloses a fan (10) having an impeller (14) and an electric motor (12), wherein the electric motor (12) includes a stator (32, 34, 36), a rotor (26) and an electronics pot (24, it contains capacitor 83 which is an electronics element) (Column 3, Lines 1 – 18; Column 4, Lines 40 – 43), comprising: a cooling structure (86) is formed or provided on an external wall (92) radially outside at least one of the stator (32, 34, 36) and the electronics pot (24) (Column 4, Lines 44 – 64), said cooling structure (86) forms a flow path (102) for a fluid (air), by way of which a flow is induced (between 86 and 112) due to a pressure differential generated (when the fan operates as disclosed) by the operation of the fan (10), wherein the flow dissipates heat from at least one of the electric motor (12), the stator (32, 34, 36), and the electronics pot (24)(Column 5, Lines 8 – 16 and 19 – 23).
In Re Claim 2, Cahill discloses that the cooling structure (86) is not formed by winding wires of the stator (“functionally relevant components” as best understood in view of the 112 b rejection above) of the motor (since it is outside the motor 12) and does not lead through the latter (path 102 is clearly not through the motor – see Figure 4)(Column 5, Lines 8 – 12).
In Re Claim 3, Cahill discloses that the cooling structure (86) is formed by a separate cooling unit (92, 84, 86; Figure 5) which is disposed on or fastened (via screws 96) to a stator flange (see portion of 16 where screws 96 are in Figure 3)(Column 4, Lines 56 – 66).
In Re Claim 4, Cahill discloses that the separate cooling unit 92, 84, 86; Figure 5) is able to be retrofitted (since screws 96 can simply be removed to attach it to a different fan or a different cooling unit can be attached to the instant fan via the screws 96) (Column 4, Lines 56 – 66).
In Re Claim 6, Cahill discloses a streamer assembly having a streamer wheel (16), wherein the cooling structure (86) is connected (via structural attachment since 16 is mounted to the cooling unit {92, 84, 86} via screws 96) to the streamer wheel (16)(Column 4, Lines 62 – 65; Figures 4, 5).
In Re Claim 7, Cahill discloses that the streamer assembly (16) has a structural function for the motor (12) because it is coupled to the motor via screws (46) (Column 3, Lines 25 – 27; Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 3 of Cahill
In Re Claim 8, Cahill discloses that in the state assembled with the motor (12), a flow path (102) for the flow extending within the cooling structure from the rotor side (i.e. hub portion 42 of the impeller 14) to the stator side (where 34 is) is formed by cooling passages through a cooling structure flange (see annotated figure above – there are radial spokes in streamer 16 that form borders of a passage between concentric rings of the streamer 16; the arc portions where 46 and 96 are attached form the other borders of the passage; so the concentric rings associated with the passage are being designated to be the flange) in a region of a motor suspension plane (i.e. the planar surface of 34) on the stator (32, 34, 36) of the motor (12)(; Figure 3).
In Re Claim 9, Cahill discloses that the flow path (102) leads past radially outside a stator flange (where screws 46 are attached in Figure 3)(Column 3, Lines 25 – 27).
PNG
media_image2.png
524
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 4 of Cahill
In Re Claim 10, Cahill discloses a narrowest flow region (see annotated figure above) for a cooling flow in the flow path (102) is formed between another external wall (112) of the stator of the motor (12), and the cooling structure, or a cooling flow guide (86 is both a cooling structure and a cooling flow guide), respectively, the cooling flow is directed through the narrowest flow region along said another external wall (112) of the stator, at a velocity that is higher at the narrowest flow region as compared to the velocity at the beginning of the flow path (102)(Column 5, Lines 8 – 13; Figure 4).
In Re Claim 11, Cahill discloses that the flow path (102), or the centerline of the latter, for the a cooling flow, or the cooling flow guide (86 is both a cooling structure and a cooling flow guide), runs from a stator flange (where screws 46 are attached in Figure 3) in the direction of a stator side (where 34 is), or the an electronics housing side (housing surface 70 of 24), toward a fan axis (a central horizontal line drawn through Figure 4), thus from larger to smaller radial positions (the shaded area in the annotated excerpt of Figure 4 gets narrower from left to right), so as to guide the cooling flow to a wall (32) of the stator (Column 4, Lines 13 – 15; Figure 4).
In Re Claim 12, Cahill discloses that the fan has a fan hub (84), wherein the cooling structure (86) is disposed between the fan hub (84) and the stator (32, 34, 36) (Column 4, Line 44 - Column 5, Line 7; Figure 4).
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (PG Pub US 20210203210 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Figure 2 of Smith discloses a fan (48) having an impeller (54) and an electric motor (62), wherein the electric motor (62) includes a stator (66), a rotor (64) and an electronics pot (68; an inverter is an electronic component) (paragraphs [0022], [0023]), comprising: a cooling structure (72) that is formed or provided on an external wall (71) radially outside at least one of the stator (66) and the electronics pot (68) (paragraph [0024]), said cooling structure (72) forms a flow path (between adjacent heat sinks) for a fluid (air), by way of which a flow is induced (see flow arrow 56) due to a pressure differential generated (when the fan operates as disclosed) by the operation of the fan (48), wherein the flow dissipates heat from at least one of the electric motor (62), the stator (66), and the electronics pot (68) (paragraphs [0022],[0024]).
In Re Claim 5, Figure 2 of Smith discloses that the cooling structure (72) is attached to (indirectly) a motor support plate (base of 52; there are two unlabeled attachment arms in Figure 2) of a radial fan (paragraph [0022] states it is a centrifugal fan) (paragraph [0027]; Figure 2).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746