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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 4 have been amended.
Claims 5 – 20 remain as originally presented.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 – 20 are objected to because of at least the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “at least one limiting member is provided between each pair of adjacent protective units,” this limitation should be recited as “at least one limiting member is provided between pairs of protective units of the at least three protective units.”
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. The claims should be corrected to conform to U.S. practice. The aforesaid claim rejections are not viewed as a complete listing of all objections present in the claims. It is noted that no other corrections to the claims were made from the 2025.10.09 claim set other than those arising from claim objections provided in the 2025.12.12 Office letter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0180603, “Oleson.”
Regarding Claim 1: Oleson discloses a fan protective shell structure (At least 26, 30, 24, 40), the fan protective shell structure surrounds the motor (20, 22, 24) to provide protection for a motor (As shown in at least Figure 7; The identified elements are shown arranged such that they are surrounding the motor, a broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “protective” reads over the disclosed arrangement wherein the elements are shown surrounding the motor and thereby providing physical protection to the motor), wherein it comprises: a connecting assembly (36, 34 and at least the bolting elements shown in at least Figures 4, 7, and 13 joining elements of the protective shell together and in conjunction with elements associated with the bearing housings and hanging fixture 28) and at least three protective units (As shown in at least Figure 7, The identified structure comprises at least three elements), where each protective unit is detachably connected to the connecting assembly (As shown in at least Figure 7; The assembly is joined together through he use of the connector bolts and is therefore interpreted as forming a detachable assembly), and the protective units are spaced apart from each other along a length direction of the connecting assembly (As shown in at least Figure 7; The protective units are shown distributed across the assembly and are therefore interpreted as being spaced apart from each other, it is noted that the protective units are spaced apart along a direction of the connecting assembly which can be defined as a direction along the central axis of the apparatus corresponding to the central axis of either, or both, of the hollow drive shaft 60 and the stationary sleeve 70).
Regarding Claim 2: Oleson discloses the fan protective shell structure according to claim 1; Oleson further discloses wherein the connecting assembly comprises a connector (34), a first fastener (36), and each of the at least three protective units is connected to the connector, with the first fastener securing each of the protective units of the at least three protective units to the connector (As shown in at least Figure 7; Each of the respective protective units is joined together through utilization of the fasteners 36 and the connector element 34).
Regarding Claim 6: Oleson discloses the fan protective shell structure according to claim 1; Oleson further discloses wherein the protective unit at the topmost position extends inward to form a hanging cover portion, which is used to connect to the through rod (7) (As shown in at least Figure 7; The topmost protective unit of the identified protective units forms the structure associated with the connection of the through rod 7 such that it is broadly interepted as forming a hanging cover portion).
Regarding Claim 7: Oleson discloses the fan protective shell structure according to claim 6; Oleson further discloses wherein the fan protective shell structure further comprises a hanging base (80), the hanging base comprises a fixed portion (The platform 80 comprises the fixed portion of the hanging base as shown in at least Figure 13), a connecting portion (202), and a second fastener (104), with the hanging cover portion being fixedly connected to the connecting portion through the second fastener, and the fixed portion is used to connect to the through rod (As shown in at least Figure 7; The fixed portion is shown together with the second fastener as coupling the hanging portion to the through rod).
Regarding Claim 11: Oleson discloses a ceiling fan (As shown in at least Figures 1 – 17), wherein it comprises a motor (The motor of claim 1; 20, 22, 24) and the fan protective shell structure according to claim 1 (As described in the aforesaid rejection of claim 1), the fan protective shell structure surrounds the motor, and the lower end of the fan body further comprises a light (100) (At least [0076], “one or more lights (100) or lighting fixtures are secured to platform (80)”).
Regarding Claim 16: Oleson discloses the ceiling fan according to claim 11; Oleson further discloses, wherein the protective unit at the topmost position extends inward to form a hanging cover portion, which is used to connect to the through rod (7) (As shown in at least Figure 7; The topmost protective unit of the identified protective units forms the structure associated with the connection of the through rod 7 such that it is broadly interepted as forming a hanging cover portion).
Regarding Claim 17: Oleson discloses the ceiling fan according to claim 11; Oleson further discloses, wherein the fan protective shell structure further comprises a hanging base (80), the hanging base comprises a fixed portion (The platform 80 comprises the fixed portion of the hanging base as shown in at least Figure 13), a connecting portion (202), and a second fastener (104), with the hanging cover portion being fixedly connected to the connecting portion through the second fastener, and the fixed portion is used to connect to the through rod (As shown in at least Figure 7; The fixed portion is shown together with the second fastener as coupling the hanging portion to the through rod).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 5, 8 – 10, 12 – 15, and 18 – 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Oleson teaches a fan protective shell structure and a ceiling fan structure as recited by the independent claims; however, Oleson fails to explicitly disclose, teach, or suggest each of the features as recited by the identified dependent claims. Such features when taken together with those of the preceding claims are not clearly identified by the prior art and incorporate structural changes which would require significant modifications to Oleson, which may alter the intendent operation of Oleson, and motivation to make such modifications has not been identified I the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026.02.03 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8 of their Remarks that Oleson fails to disclose the amended limitation of claim 1, “the protective units are spaced apart from each other along a length direction of the connecting assembly,” as “each hub 40 [of Oleson] lies in a single transverse plane” and that “there is no teaching of multiple guard units that are serially spaced along an axial rod.”
PNG
media_image1.png
186
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant’s arguments are directed toward only one element of the identified fan protective shell structure and its arrangement to other like elements while discounting the relative spacing or arrangement of the other identified components. It is further noted that the amended claim limitation fails to recite a frame of reference establishing directionality to the recited “a length direction,” such that that the limitation can be taught by any components which can be shown spaced apart from one other.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “each hub 40 [of Oleson] lies in a single transverse plane” and that “there is no teaching of multiple guard units that are serially spaced along an axial rod.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is arguing a narrow interpretation of their structure while imparting such an interpretation onto Oleson; however, Applicant has failed to amended the claims to recite structure equivalent to that which they are arguing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN DOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0900 - 1700.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/BENJAMIN DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
2026.02.18
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2/20/2026