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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 2 should read “the heat conductor
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “checking device” in claim 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 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) 1-4, 6, 8-10, & 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0036321 to Yu in view of US 2017/0007973 to Schob et al. and JP 3165612 to Wu (attached herein with machine translation).
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-3, Yu discloses:
(1) A fan (10; Figs. 1-2) for generating a compressible fluid flow (“currents of air”; paras. 3 & 35), the fan comprising: a substantially tubular housing (20) having a suction opening (left side opening; Fig. 2) configured to suck the compressible fluid therethrough and a pressure side opening (right side opening; Fig. 2) configured to eject the compressible fluid (paras. 3 & 35); a stator (24); and a rotor (40), the stator together with the rotor forming an electromagnetic rotary drive for rotating the rotor about an axial direction (para. 35), the rotor being an external rotor (Fig. 2), the rotor comprising a magnetic core (44) configured in an annular manner (para. 33), and an impeller (41, 45, 46) comprising a hub (41, 45) on which a plurality of blades (46) configured to generate the fluid flow is arranged (Fig. 2), the stator being a bearing and drive stator configured to magnetically drive the rotor without contact (para. 35; “winding 24 is energized to induce with the magnetic member 44 an electric potential, thereby an angular displacement of the magnetic member 44”) and magnetically levitate the rotor without contact with respect to the stator (para. 35; “a magnetic floating status”), and the rotor being capable of being actively magnetically levitated in a radial plane perpendicular to the axial direction (para. 35; “a magnetic floating status”)
Although Yu discloses much of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose:
1) the hub of the impeller completely enclosing the magnetic core of the rotor, or
2) the stator being hermetically encapsulated in a stator housing that is formed of a low-permeable material and that is configured to be completely immersed in the compressible fluid, the stator housing having a first housing portion and a second housing portion, the first housing portion being arranged within the rotor and being surrounded by the magnetic core of the rotor, and the second housing portion having an outer diameter which is at least as large as an outer diameter of the magnetic core of the rotor.
However, Schob et al. (Schob) and Wu remedy these deficiencies.
Schob discloses another rotary fluid movement device for generating a compressible fluid flow (Schob discloses a mixing assembly 1 having an impeller 21 capable of moving air; see para. 79, which discloses movement of air) which includes a stator (3) and a rotor (2), wherein the stator together with the rotor forms an electromagnetic rotary drive for rotating the rotor about an axial direction (paras. 7-9, 19, 22), the rotor being an external rotor (para. 23; Fig. 2), the rotor comprising a magnetic core (22) configured in an annular manner (para. 39; Figs. 2 & 5), and an impeller (21) comprising a hub (23) on which a plurality of blades (211) configured to generate the fluid flow is arranged (Fig. 2), the hub of the impeller completely enclosing the magnetic core of the rotor (para. 107; Fig. 2). Schob makes clear that through use of the jacket 23, the magnetic core 22 of the rotor is completely enclosed (“cast into a plastic”), which provides for an integrated rotor/core/blade assembly that “offers the advantage of a very compact and space-saving design” (para. 106). Furthermore, those of skill in the art would readily recognize that such an arrangement prevents fluid contact with the magnetic core, thereby enhancing its durability.
Wu discloses another yet another fan (Fig. 4; “a fan motor structure and fan having waterproof and dustproof functions that can prevent damage to the internal structure of the fan due to moisture and dust”; para. 1) for generating a compressible fluid flow (“forcibly dissipate heat from heat-generating components”; para. 2), the fan comprising: a substantially tubular housing (16) having a suction opening (top opening; Fig. 4) configured to suck the compressible fluid therethrough and a pressure side opening (lower opening; Fig. 4) configured to eject the compressible fluid (Fig. 4); a stator (13) (Fig. 3); and a rotor (17, 174) (Fig. 3), the stator together with the rotor forming an electromagnetic rotary drive for rotating the rotor about an axial direction (Fig. 4; para. 2), the rotor being an external rotor (Fig. 4), the rotor comprising a magnetic core (174) configured in an annular manner (Fig. 3; “a ring shape”; para. 26), and an impeller (172, 173; Fig. 3) comprising a hub (172) on which a plurality of blades (173) configured to generate the fluid flow is arranged (Figs. 3-4). Wu goes on to specifically disclose the stator (13) being hermetically encapsulated in a stator housing (12; Fig. 3) that is formed of a low-permeable material (“plastic”; paras. 29-32) and that is configured to be completely immersed in the compressible fluid (Fig. 4), the stator housing having a first housing portion (1222; Fig. 3) and a second housing portion (the bottom end flange of the stator housing 12; seen best in Fig. 3), the first housing portion being arranged within the rotor and being surrounded by the magnetic core of the rotor (Fig. 4), and the second housing portion having an outer diameter which is at least as large as an outer diameter of the magnetic core of the rotor (Fig. 4). Wu makes clear that through use of such a stator housing, moisture and dust is reliably prevented from contacting the stator or circuit board, thus improving the overall durability and reliability of the fan drive system.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan with improved rotor and stator durability, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Schob and Wu in combination with those seen in Yu 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 1) modified Yu’s rotor magnetic core to be cast into plastic of the hub (as taught in Schob) and 2) hermetically sealed Yu’s stator and circuit board within a dedicated stator housing (as taught in Wu) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a more reliable axial fan drive that ensures the magnetic core and stator assembly are both protected from damage. It is further noted that via such a combination, the stator housing (now in Yu’s axial fan) would clearly be configured to be completely immersed in the compressible fluid (i.e. surrounding air) being conveyed by Yu’s fan.
In regards to Claim 2, Wu discloses the use of plastic (paras. 29-32) for the stator housing (now incorporated into Yu), while Schob discloses that the impeller hub consists of a plastic (paras. 107, 113) (also now incorporated into Yu). The Examiner notes that Applicant’s originally filed specification states that the two recited plastics can be different plastic materials or the same plastic material. As such, Claim 2 covers any plastic material combination, which the combination of Yu as modified by Wu and Schob clearly meets.
In regards to Claim 3, Yu as modified by Wu results in the rotor and the stator housing being arranged in the housing (Fig. 1), and the stator housing (from Wu) would clearly be fixed in the housing (20) by Yu’s plurality of struts (30, 34; Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 4, Yu discloses the use of a checking device (circuit board 25) configured to control or regulate the fan (para. 2), as claimed. Additionally, Wu discloses a checking device (circuit board 15) configured to control or regulate the fan (para. 2), wherein the checking device is arranged in the second housing portion of the stator housing (Fig. 4 of Wu). Thus, as modified, Yu’s circuit board 25 would now be arranged in the second housing portion, as claimed.
In regards to Claim 6, Yu discloses a plurality of coil cores (i.e. inside of the windings 24) each of which extends in the radial direction (Fig. 2), and carries a winding (24) configured to generate an electromagnetic rotary field (Fig. 2; “magnetic field”; para. 34).
In regards to Claim 8, Wu discloses a heat conducting element (i.e. walls of the stator housing) configured to dissipate heat in the stator housing (para. 33; “generated heat can be dissipated to the housing 12 by radiation, and the housing 12 can then dissipate the heat to the outside”), and the heat conducting element being configured so as to surround at least the checking device (as shown in Fig. 4 of Wu). The same would remain when incorporated into Yu’s axial fan.
In regards to Claim 9, Yu’s rotor is configured for fluid-dynamic stabilization of the rotor against tilting (via magnetic floating shaft set 50, including guides 22 & 32).
In regards to Claim 10, Yu’s impeller hub has a suction-side end (external wall of base 41; Fig. 2) and a pressure-side end (i.e. the opposite axial end of hub), and the magnetic core of the rotor is closer to the pressure-side end than to the suction-side end of the hub with respect to the axial direction (this is apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 12, each blade of Yu’s plurality of blades has a leading edge (i.e. the upper blade edge, seen in Figs. 2-3; this is also implicit in any axial fan blade), each leading edge extending perpendicularly (at least partially) to the axial direction (apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 13, each of Yu’s blades has a trailing edge (i.e. the lower blade edge, seen in Fig. 2), each trailing edge opening into the hub at an angle to the axial direction different from 90 degrees (apparent in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Schob-Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FR 2,820,176 to Laurent (attached herein).
In regards to Claim 15, although Yu discloses that each blade of the plurality of blades has a trailing edge (shown in Fig. 2; also implicit to any axial fan blade), Yu does not further disclose a stabilizing ring at the trailing edges and arranged coaxial with the rotor.
However, Laurent discloses another axial fan device (3) having a rotor (8) similar to that of Schob, and further discloses a stabilizing/balancing ring (12) disposed at the blade trailing edges (as shown in Figs. 1-4), the stabilizing ring being arranged coaxially with the rotor (Fig. 1). Laurent discloses that such a stabilizing/balancing ring (12) allows for the placement of inertia weights (20) in a balanced manner so that the rotational inertia of the fan can be increased while remaining balanced. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an axial fan having higher inertia, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Laurent in combination with those seen in Yu 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 modified the impeller blade tips of Yu with the stabilizing ring (12) and associated inertia weights (20) of Laurent in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an axial fan that has higher rotational inertia while remaining balanced (as taught in Laurent).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/775,970 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the reference application. Specifically, the reference application and the instant application claim common subject matter as follows: a fan having a substantially tubular housing having a suction opening and a pressure opening, a stator, and a rotor, the stator together with the rotor forming an electromagnetic rotary drive for rotating the rotor about an axial direction, the rotor being an external rotor, the rotor comprising a magnetic core configured in an annular manner, and an impeller comprising a hub on which a plurality of blades configured to generate the fluid flow is arranged, the stator being a bearing and drive stator configured to magnetically drive the rotor without contact and magnetically levitate the rotor without contact with respect to the stator, and the rotor being capable of being actively magnetically levitated in a radial plane perpendicular to the axial direction, the hub of the impeller completely enclosing the magnetic core of the rotor, the stator being encapsulated in a stator housing and formed of a low-permeable material and configured to be completely immersed in the compressible fluid, the stator housing having a first housing portion and a second housing portion, the first housing portion being arranged within the rotor and being surrounded by the magnetic core of the rotor, and the second housing portion having an outer diameter which is at least as large as an outer diameter of the magnetic core of the rotor, and all functional limitations associated with these common elements. Finally, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 11, & 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yu (as well as the other cited prior art) is silent towards any pressure/flow sensor connected to a checking device arranged as recited in Claim 5. Additionally, Yu (as well as the other cited prior art) is silent towards the particular arrangement of an annular reflux and plurality of permanent magnets as recited in Claim 7. Furthermore, Yu fails to disclose that the hub of the impeller tapers in a direction of the suction-side end, as recited in Claim 11, and there would have no reason or motivation to have provided such a tapering on Yu’s hub, absent impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Finally, Yu specifically discloses the use of permanent magnets for his stator drive arrangement, and thus, it would not have been obvious to have removed such magnets (as recited in Claim 15) because doing so would have damaged or destroyed the originally intended operation in Yu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also US 2006/0119198 to Chio and US 8,581,462 to Nussbaumer, each of which discloses a floating external rotor design for driving rotary machines, such as pumps and fans.
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 on 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
