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 .
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 “plurality of cover coupling grooves” (of Claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. As far as the examiner understands the specification, there is, at most, a single cover coupling groove 540 depicted in the supplied figures.
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 Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 1 should read “an axial end”
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 6-9 & 12-13 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an outer wall” in lines 2 and 4; these limitations render the claim indefinite because it is not made clear whether these limitations are 1) attempting to refer back to the “outer wall” recited in Claim 1 or 2) introducing additional outer walls altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “an outer wall” in line 4; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “outer wall” recited in Claim 11 or 2) introducing an additional outer wall altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “an inner peripheral surface” in line 4; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “inner peripheral surface” recited in Claim 11 or 2) introducing an additional surface altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the cover coupling groove” in line 8; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear which groove of the “plurality of cover coupling grooves” (recited earlier in the claim) is being referred back to by this language. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as referring back to one cover coupling groove of the plurality.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an inner peripheral surface” in line 4; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “inner peripheral surface” recited in Claim 11, 2) attempting to refer back to the “inner peripheral surface” recited in Claim 12 or 3) introducing an additional surface altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
(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) 1-6, 9, & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by US 3,082,940 to Prantz.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 11, and with particular reference to Figure 2-4, Prantz discloses:
1. A fan motor (Figs. 2-3; “vacuum cleaner motor and fan unit”; col. 1, line 10) comprising: an impeller (57) configured to suction air as it rotates about a shaft (53) of a motor (52); an impeller cover (13) configured to accommodate the impeller therein (Fig. 3); and a guide vane (11, 64) configured to guide air discharged from the impeller (“serves as air guides or vanes”; col. 3, lines 23-24), wherein at least a portion of an outer peripheral surface of the impeller cover (i.e. outer surface of 13) is coupled to an inner peripheral surface of an outer wall (11) of the guide vane (apparent in Fig. 2, where screw 77 couples the overlapping region of the outer wall 11 of the guide vane to the outer peripheral surface of the flange 76 of the impeller cover 13).
11. A fan motor (Figs. 2-3; “vacuum cleaner motor and fan unit”; col. 1, line 10) comprising: an impeller (57) arranged to suction air as it rotates about a shaft (53) of a motor (52); an impeller cover (13) configured to accommodate the impeller therein (Fig. 3); and a guide vane (11, 64) arranged to guide air discharged from the impeller (“serves as air guides or vanes”; col. 3, lines 23-24), wherein the impeller cover comprises: a cover body having an outer diameter that increases toward the guide vane (cross-hatched impeller cover body 13 that expands in diameter towards the guide vane is apparent in Fig. 3); and an insertion portion (flange 76) extending from an end of the cover body in a direction toward the guide vane along an axial direction (Fig. 3), and inserted into and coupled to an inner peripheral surface of an outer wall of the guide vane (apparent in Fig. 2; see the overlapping region of the outer wall 11 of the guide vane and the outer peripheral surface of the flange 76 of the impeller cover 13).
In regards to Claim 2, the guide vane further comprises an inner wall (i.e. wall of motor 52; see Fig. 2; “housing of the motor 52 as a radial inner wall”) having a plurality of vane blades (64; “a pair of rubber or the like mounting elements”) formed on an outer peripheral surface thereof (69; Fig. 2), and the plurality of vane blades are connected to an inner peripheral surface of the outer wall (Figs. 2-3; “surface 69 abuts the wall”);
In regards to Claim 3, the guide vane has a cover coupling groove (68; Fig. 2) formed along a circumferential direction (Fig. 2) between a radially outer end of the vane blade and the inner peripheral surface of the outer wall (apparent in Figs. 2-3; “outer wall is stepped whereby surface 68 is slightly spaced from the inner wall of the receptacle 11”; col. 3, lines 26-28).
In regards to Claim 4, an axially one end of the impeller cover (i.e. axial end/flange 76) is accommodated in the cover coupling groove (Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 5, a diameter of an outer peripheral surface of the impeller cover is equal to a diameter of an inner peripheral surface of the outer wall of the guide vane (apparent in Fig. 3, at the overlapping region adjacent screw 77).
In regards to Claim 6, the impeller cover comprises: a cover body having an outer diameter that increases toward the guide vane (see Claim 11 above); and an insertion portion (flange 76) inserted into and coupled to an outer wall (11) of the guide vane (see Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 9, a bonding groove (seen in Fig. 3; the groove formed by impeller cover 13 that wraps around the distal/left end of the outer wall 11) is formed along a circumferential direction on an outer peripheral surface of the insertion portion (Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 12, the guide vane comprises: an inner wall (i.e. wall of motor 52; see Fig. 2; “housing of the motor 52 as a radial inner wall”) having a plurality of vane blades (64; “a pair of rubber or the like mounting elements”) formed on an outer peripheral surface thereof (Fig. 2); an outer wall (11) to which the vane blades are connected on an inner peripheral surface thereof (Fig. 2; “surface 69 abuts the wall”); and a plurality of cover coupling grooves (68; Fig. 2) formed at radially outer ends of the vane blades (Fig. 2) and arranged along a circumferential direction (Fig. 2), wherein a height from the cover coupling groove to an upper end of the outer wall is greater than a height of the insertion portion (apparent in Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantz (applied above) in view of DE 202022104456 to Vorwerk (attached herein with machine translation).
In regards to Claims 7-8 & 13, Frantz discloses the fan motor of claim 6, but does not further disclose wherein an adhesive is applied to an outer peripheral surface of the insertion portion, wherein, in a state where the insertion portion is inserted into an outer wall of the guide vane, the adhesive seals between at least a portion (i.e. and upper portion) of an outer peripheral surface of the cover body and an inner peripheral surface of an outer wall of the guide vane (as recited in Claims 7-8 & 13).
However, Vorwerk discloses another vacuum cleaner fan motor unit very similar to Frantz, and which likewise discloses an impeller (2) configured to suction air as it rotates about a shaft (5) of a motor (Fig. 1); an impeller cover (3) configured to accommodate the impeller therein (Fig. 1; para. 40); and a guide vane (4) configured to guide air discharged from the impeller (“diffuser”; paras. 40, 42-45), wherein at least a portion of a peripheral surface of the impeller cover is coupled to a peripheral surface of an outer wall of the guide vane (Fig. 1). Vorwerk goes on to specifically disclose the use of adhesive at the lap joint (9) between the impeller cover and the guide vane (paras. 35, 46; Fig. 1). Vorwerk specifically discloses that use of an adhesive at this joint is “particularly advantageous in terms of simple and quick assembly of the blower unit as well as a high-quality and positionally stable connection between the guide apparatus and the blower cover”. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan motor unit with quick, simple, and stable assembly, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Vorwerk in combination with those seen in Frantz in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Frantz’s impeller cover-to-guide-vane lap joint with an adhesive in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an improved lap joint that ensures stability even if screw 77 becomes loose (as taught in Vorwerk). With such a modification, the adhesive would applied to an outer peripheral surface of Frantz’s insertion portion, and when Frantz’s insertion portion is inserted into an inner peripheral surface of Frantz’s outer wall, a portion of the adhesive would seal an upper side of the insertion portion and an inner peripheral surface of the outer wall, as claimed.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantz (applied above).
In regards to Claim 10, Frantz discloses the fan motor of claim 1, but does not further disclose that a maximum diameter of the guide vane (11, 64) is greater than a maximum diameter of the impeller cover (13), as claimed.
However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is therefore not patentably distinct (See MPEP § 2144.04 - Paragraph IV.A). In this instance, Frantz clearly discloses an impeller cover having a smaller outer diameter than the guide vane such that it can be inserted into the outer wall of the guide vane, as claimed and disclosed by Applicant. Applicant’s specification makes clear that by providing such an arrangement, the outer diameter of the fan motor can be reduced overall. Frantz provides exactly as much, and does so in the same manner described by Applicant. Furthermore, it has been held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (see In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233) or an optimum value of a result effective variable (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) involves only routine skill in the art. As such, Claim 10 is not patentably distinct from the teachings of Frantz.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also US 4,057,370 to Numata, US 3,245,610 to Sebok, and US 3,096,929 to Sebok, all of which disclose fan motors having similar arrangements to that claimed by Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights