DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 21 May 2026. Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8 and 10 – 21 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 770, 797, 799. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 – 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 10, the phrase “the annual wall” in Line 1 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --the annular wall--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previously made 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn in view of suitable amendments to the claims submitted with applicant’s response.
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, 3, 5, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh (US Patent 5,947,704 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 1 of Hsieh
In Re Claim 1, Figure 1 of Hsieh discloses a ceiling fan (this recitation has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951)) comprising: a set of blades (22) extending between a root (where it connects to 21) and a tip (opposite end from the where it connects to 21); a motor assembly comprising: a stator assembly comprising a stationary motor shaft (12), and a stator (see annotated figure above) coupled to the stationary motor shaft (12), and a second wall (10) located below the stator and defining a lower extent of the motor, a rotor assembly comprising a rotor (see annotated figure above) operably coupled to the root of the blades (22), a first wall (see annotated figure above) axially spaced from the second wall (10) and defining an upper extent of the motor, a hole (shaded area in the annotated figure above) located in the first wall (see annotated figure above) and receiving the stationary motor shaft (12), which terminates at the first wall (top surface of 12 intersects the first wall), a peripheral wall (see annotated figure above) depending from the first wall (see annotated figure above) toward the second wall (10), magnets (this is part of the rotor of any conventional motor 30 – Column 2, Line 17: “A motor which is conventional”; the above annotated figure shows where the magnets would be) carried by the peripheral wall (see annotated figure above), an annular wall (see annotated figure above) depending from the first wall (see annotated figure above) toward the second wall (10) and circumscribing the hole (see annotated figure above) and the stationary motor shaft (12), wherein a bearing seat is formed by the annular wall (see annotated figure above), first wall (see annotated figure above), and stationary motor shaft (12), and a bearing assembly having a single bearing (20) located within the bearing seat and rotationally coupling the stationary motor shaft (12) to the rotor assembly (of which the annotated rotor in the above figure is part of); (Column 2, Lines 10 – 31; Figure 1).
In Re Claim 3, Figure 1 of Hsieh discloses that the first wall (top annular portion of 2), peripheral wall and second wall (10) define an interior at least partially bounded by the first wall (see annotated figure above), second wall (14), and peripheral wall (see annotated figure above), and the bearing seat is located within the interior between the first wall (see annotated figure above) and the second wall (10).
In Re Claim 5, Hsieh discloses that the stationary motor shaft (12) does not extend beyond the second wall (10).
In Re Claim 16, Hsieh discloses that the peripheral wall (see annotated figure above) axially overlaps at least a portion of the second wall (10).
In Re Claim 21, Hsieh discloses that the stator (see annotated figure above) is immediately adjacent to the second wall (10).
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) 6 – 8, 10 – 13 and 17 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh (US Patent 5,947,704 A) in view of Horng446 (PG Pub US 20200173446 A1).
In Re Claim 6, Hsieh discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, but it does not disclose a light kit.
However, Horng446 discloses that second wall (41) defines a light kit; (paragraphs [0057],[0058],[0059]; Figure 3).
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 modify the second wall of Hsieh to include/define a light kit as taught by Horng446 for illumination purposes.
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 6, and Horng446 discloses that the light kit comprises a plurality of LED’s (paragraph [0059] carried by the second wall (41).
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 7, and Horng446 discloses that the second wall (41) defines an accessory recess (paragraph [0059] discloses a power cord which reads on the claimed accessory, and the space inside the second wall where the power cord is reads on a recess).
In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 8, and Hsieh discloses that the annual wall (see annotated figure above) depends from the first wall (see annotated figure above) and circumscribes the stationary motor shaft (12).
In Re Claim 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, and Hsieh discloses that the annular wall (see annotated figure above) has a length at least as much as an entire axial length of the single bearing (20).
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Hsieh discloses that the stationary motor shaft (12) abuts an entire axial length of the singe bearing (20).
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 12, and Hsieh discloses that the annular wall (see annotated figure above) abuts an outer surface (outer race) of the single bearing (20) and the stationary motor shaft (12) abuts an inner surface (inner race) of the single bearing (20).
In Re Claim 17, Hsieh discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, but it does not disclose that the permanent magnets are circumferentially spaced..
However, Official notice has been taken that this is well known in the art (Official Notice has been taken - MPEP 2144.03) and would be an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure (magnet 72 of Hsieh) in various elements is routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, V-C).
In Re Claim 18, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 17, and in the modified apparatus, the permanent magnets of Horng446 would be in the interior of Hsieh.
In Re Claim 19, Hsieh discloses all the limitations of Claim 18, but it does not disclose the details of the stator.
However Horng446 discloses the stator (2) comprises a core (21) carried by the stationary motor shaft and having a plurality of circumferentially spaced windings (22) confronting the permanent magnets (32).
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 core and windings as taught by Horng446 into the stator of Hsieh because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed stator assembly of Hsieh with the specifically disclosed stator assembly details of Hoeng446, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable – MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B.
In Re Claim 20, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 19, and Hsieh discloses that the blades (22) are mounted to (does not mean direct contact) the first wall (see annotated figure above).
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh (US Patent 5,947,704 A) in view of Horng446 (PG Pub US 20200173446 A1) and further in view of Anderson (US Patent 3,626,221 A).
In Re Claims 14 and 15, Hsieh and Horng446 disclose all the limitations of Claim 13, but they do not disclose a snap-ring attached to the stationary motor shaft.
However, Figure 2 of Anderson discloses a bearing (40) that is retained between snap ring (44) attached to stationary motor shaft (13) and first wall (42) of rotor (28, 11).
The snap ring (44) abuts a first axial end of bearing (40), and a second axial end of
bearing (40) abuts the first wall (42).
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 mount the bearing of Hsieh / Horng446 between a snap ring attached to the shaft and first wall as taught by Anderson for the purpose of securing the bearing.
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