DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 05 May 2026. 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 “an housing” in Line 4 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --a housing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim 5, in the Figures 12 – 14 radial fan embodiment the incoming airflow into the fan is in the SAME direction as the cooling flow induced by the cooling structure (40), therefore it contradicts parent claim 1 which requires that the flows be in OPPOSITE directions. The claimed embodiment is therefore not supported by the original disclosure, and thus constitutes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4, 11 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 4, this claim depends on itself, which makes it an improper dependent claim, and is therefore indefinite. Additionally there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the separate cooling unit” in Lines 1 – 2. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that this claim depends on Claim 3.
In Re Claim 11, the limitation “wherein the flow or the centerline of the latter” in Lines 1 – 2 is not clear what it means and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --wherein the flow path, or the centerline of the flow path-- will be assumed instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 and 6 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (US Patent 5,967,764 A) in view of Stauder (PG Pub US 20030019606 A1) and further in view of Cahill (US Patent 6,599,105 B1).
In Re Claim 1, the Figure 1F embodiment of Booth discloses a fan having an impeller (16) and an electric motor (300), wherein the electric motor includes a stator, a rotor and an electronics pot (well known components – MPEP 2144.03, for evidence thereof see Cahill reference discussed below), comprising: an inflow side (where air flows into the heat exchanger in Figure 1B) and an outflow side (downstream of the fan/ below the fan in Figure 1B) and draws air in a first direction (30 in Figure 1B and 308 in Figure 1F); wherein flow is induced in a second direction (straight portion of arrow 301 in Figure 1F) opposite of the first direction (308) due to a pressure differential generated by the operation of the fan (this limitation is met when the fan operates as disclosed), wherein the flow (301) dissipates heat from at least one of the electric motor, the stator, and the electronics pot (since the cooling air flows over the motor casing – Column 4, Lines 38 – 39) (Column 3, Lines 26 – 37; Column 4, Lines 36 – 44; Figures 1B, 1F).
Although a housing that supports the heat exchanger and impeller is implied, Booth does not explicitly disclose that the impeller (and heat exchanger) are disposed in a housing.
However, Figure 3 and 4 of Stauder discloses a housing (12, 16) with an impeller (14) is disposed within, the housing has in inflow side (where heat exchanger 18 is) and an outflow side (where the fan motor 13 is), and air is pulled through the heat exchanger in the claimed first direction (“A” in Figure 3) (paragraphs [0021] – [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the impeller and motor of Booth in a housing as taught by Stauder, because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed/implied housing of Booth with the specifically disclosed housing of Stauder, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Booth and Stauder do not disclose a cooling structure on an external wall spaced radially outside at least one of the stator and the electronics pot.
However, 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), the
cooling structure (86) forms a flow path (102 - between 86 and 112) for a fluid (air) between an inside of the external wall (92) and at least one of the stator (32, 34, 36) and the electronics pot (24, 83), 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
778
1348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1F of Booth showing the modification of Cahill
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the cooling structure (22) of Cahill around the motor of Booth for the purpose of minimizing air turbulence and drag of the fan system (Column 5, Lines 49 – 51 of Cahill).
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Cahill discloses that the cooling structure (22) is a separate component from the motor (12) and does not lead through the motor.
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and 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, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and 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) to the fan (10) (Column 4, Lines 56 - 66).
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and 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, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 6, and 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_image3.png
568
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 3 of Cahill
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and annotated Figure 3 above of 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).
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Cahill discloses that the flow path (102) leads past a radially outside of a stator flange (where screws 46 are attached in Figure 3)(Column 3, Lines 25 – 27).
PNG
media_image4.png
524
866
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 4 of Cahill
In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and 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 the another external wall (112) of the stator (Column 5, Lines 8 – 13; Figure 4).
In Re Claim 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Cahill discloses that a 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 along a wall (32) of the stator (Column 4, Lines 13 – 15; Figure 4). In the modified apparatus, the airflow would pass over the electronics pot first, then flow to the narrowest flow region adjacent to the stator.
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and 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. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (PG Pub US 20150061429 A1) in view of Cahill (US Patent 6,599,105 B1).
In Re Claim 1, Figure 3 of Sakai discloses a fan having an impeller (2) and an electric motor (6a), wherein the electric motor includes a stator (4), a rotor (5) and an electronics pot (6b, 11), comprising: a housing (3) having an inflow side (3c) and an outflow side (3d) wherein the impeller (2) is disposed within the housing (3) and draws air into the housing in a first direction (upward vertical direction through 3c); a cooling flow (17) that is formed or provided on an external wall (circumferential lip of 16) spaced radially outside at least one of the stator (4) and the electronics pot (6b, 11), a flow path (portion of 17 engaging the circumferential lip of 16 before it flows to “C”) between an inside of the external wall (circumferential lip of 16) and at least one of the stator (4) and the electronics pot (6b, 11) wherein the cooling flow (17 that exits the circumferential lip of 16 and flows to “C” – see flow arrow next to labels “6b” and “C”) is in a second direction opposite of the first direction due to a pressure differential generated by the operation of the fan (when the fan operates as disclosed), wherein the flow dissipates heat from at least one of the electric motor (6a), the stator (4), and the electronics pot (6b, 11) (paragraph [0020]: “sufficiently cooled from the outside, too”) (paragraphs [0020],[0038],[0039],[0041],[0042]; Figure 3).
Although Sakai discloses a cooling flow (17), it does not explicitly disclose a cooling structure that is formed or provided on an external wall spaced radially outside at least one of the stator and the electronics pot.
However, 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), the cooling structure (86) forms a flow path (102 - between 86 and 112) for a fluid (air) between an inside of the external wall (92) and at least one of the stator (32, 34, 36) and the electronics pot (24, 83), 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).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the cooling structure (22) of Cahill around the motor of Sakai for the purpose of minimizing air turbulence and drag of the fan system (Column 5, Lines 49 – 51 of Cahill).
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Sakai discloses a radial fan, so in the modified apparatus, the cooling structure (22) of Cahill would be attached to a motor support plate (16) of Cahill which is in turn would be attached to the motor of Sakai.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights