Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (FIG. 7) in the reply filed on 15 July 2026 is acknowledged.
It is noted, no claims is/are withdrawn from further consideration as a result of the reply filed on 31 March 2025.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 15 July 2026.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the examiner.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a root portion configured to extend outwardly in a diametrical direction from the hub portion without twisting; and a blade portion disposed between the root portion and a blade end, and configured to be twisted at a twisting angle with respect to the root portion, and to be capable of generating a propeller airflow,” (emphasis added) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 8. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 4-6 and 8 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.
Regarding Claim 4:
The claim language, "wherein the propeller drive unit is a motor," renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the propeller drive unit is required, since the propeller drive unit in claim 1 is mentioned in the preamble as an intended use, and the claim is directed to a cooling structure, not a propeller drive unit.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim language, "when viewed from an axial direction of the propeller, the vane portion is disposed more outwardly in the diametrical direction than the propeller," renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the vane portion can be disposed more outwardly than the propeller, since the vane portion itself makes up a part of the propeller.
Regarding Claims 5-6:
Claims 5-6 are rejected by virtue of dependence.
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.
(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) 1-4, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Edens et al (US 12448142), hereafter referred to as Edens.
Regarding Claim 1, Edens discloses the following:
A cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) for cooling a propeller (34) drive unit (20c) configured to rotate and drive an aircraft propeller (34) (see FIG. 1), the cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) comprising:
a fan (42; FIG. 2; Col. 3, lines 50-65) configured to supply a cooling air to an outer peripheral part (45; FIG. 13) of the propeller (34) drive unit (20c); and
an airflow straightening vane (158; FIG. 13-14) configured to straighten the cooling air (see Col. 11, lines 30-40).
Regarding Claim 2, Edens discloses the following:
The cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) according to claim 1,
further comprising a housing (44; FIG. 13) in which the propeller (34) drive unit (20c) is accommodated, wherein the airflow straightening vane (158; FIG. 13-14) is disposed in an interior of the housing (44; FIG. 13) and faces toward the outer peripheral part (45; FIG. 13) of the propeller (34) drive unit (20c).
Regarding Claim 3, Edens discloses the following:
The cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) according to claim 1, wherein
the fan (42; FIG. 2; Col. 3, lines 50-65) and the air guide vane (158; FIG. 13-14) are provided respectively in a plurality, and
each of the plurality of fans (42; FIG. 2; Col. 3, lines 50-65) and each of the plurality of airflow guide vanes (158; FIG. 13-14) are disposed alternately in the axial direction of a rotating part provided in the propeller (34) drive unit (20c).
Regarding Claim 4, Edens discloses the following:
The cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) according to claim 1,
wherein the propeller (34) drive unit (20c) is a motor (70).
Regarding Claim 7, Edens discloses the following:
The cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) according to claim 1, wherein
the propeller (34) is capable of generating a propeller (34) airflow that flows downwardly with respect to an aircraft body of the aircraft, and
the propeller (34) airflow flows in an opposite direction to the direction in which the cooling air flows.
Regarding Claim 9, Edens discloses the following:
The cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) according to claim 1,
wherein the airflow straightening vane (158; FIG. 13-14) comprises a coolant (134) flow portion (160; Col. 10, lines 30-35) in an interior thereof through which a coolant (134) flows.
Regarding Claim 10, Edens discloses the following:
The cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) according to claim 9,
wherein the coolant (134) cools the propeller (34) drive unit (20c).
Regarding Claim 11, Edens discloses the following:
The cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) according to claim 2,
wherein an outer peripheral surface of the housing (44; FIG. 13) comprises a projecting part (44c; FIG. 13 or alternatively 130).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edens et al (US 12448142), hereafter referred to as Edens.
Regarding Claim 8, Edens discloses the following:
The cooling structure (83c; FIG. 13-14; Col. 10, line 20 - Col. 11, line 40) according to claim 2, wherein
the propeller (34) comprises:
a hub portion (36); and
a plurality of blades (34) configured to be extended outwardly in a diametrical direction of the hub portion (36),
each of the plurality of blades comprises:
a blade portion disposed between the root portion and a blade end, and configured to be twisted at a twisting angle with respect to the root portion (see Col. 7, lines 5-40), and to be capable of generating a propeller (34) airflow,
when viewed from an axial direction of the propeller (34), the vane (158; FIG. 13-14) portion is disposed more outwardly (in as much as the Instant Application) in the diametrical direction than the propeller (34).
Edens does not explicitly disclose the following:
a root portion configured to extend outwardly in a diametrical direction from the hub portion without twisting;
However Edens teaches the following:
the design of the spanwise twist of the blades is a results effective variable that affects the exit pressure of the fan (see Col. 7, lines 0-40);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the twist of root of the fan blades as disclosed by Edens; with the expected result of affecting the exit pressure of the fan (see Edens, Col. 7, lines 0-40)l Therein it is known that design of the spanwise twist of the blade is a result effective variable effecting the exit pressure of the fan, and thus an optimization of the twist of the blade, such that the root portion is without twisting, could be undertaken following the extension of the same logic, as disclosed by Edens, under the same known conditions, and using the same result effective variable. (See MPEP 2144.05, II, B.)
Edens as modified still does not disclose the following:
a direction in which the propeller airflow flows and a direction in which the cooling air flows are opposite to each other, and
However the Examiner notes the following:
it is well known in the art (Official Notice) that the positioning of the pressure and suction sides of a blade is a results effective variable that affects the direction of the airflow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure and suction sides of the blades, as taught by Edens, by reversing the pressure and suction sides, with the reasonable expectation of changing the direction of the airflow through the cooling structure, as taught by Official Notice. It is noted, the courts have held that the mere reversal of parts was held to be an obvious modification, in this instance the pressure and suction sides are merely being reversed. (See MPEP 2144.04, VI, A.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-6 would appear to 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.
Claim 12 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claims 5 and 6:
a rotor to which the propeller is connected, and further, which is disposed outwardly in a diametrical direction of the stator and is configured to rotate relatively with respect to the stator,
Regarding Claim 12:
each of the plurality of fan side end parts and the plurality of vane side end parts is formed in an inclined manner with respect to the axial direction, and an angle of inclination of the fan side end part with respect to the axial direction is substantially the same as an angle of inclination of the vane side end parts with respect to the axial direction (Examiner Note: [0096] discloses the aforementioned limitation(s) make it possible to effectively suppress the loss of speed (the energy loss) of the cooling air that is discharged by the plurality of fans);
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Edens et al (US 12448142).
The Examiner notes Edens is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
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
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar motor cooling arrangements see Pages 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights