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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 06/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-40 remain pending. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections involving Chang:
Regarding claims 21 and 39, the Applicant argues Chang does not disclose at least one winglet “running at least in part on at least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element” since the baffle part (224) of Chang is “joined to the end edge of the fan blade and extends tangentially toward the adjacent fan blade”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is clearly shown in Figures 6 and 8-10 of Chang, baffle 224 extends along a radial length of the blade on an axial longitudinal side of the blades.
Regarding claims 21 and 39, the Applicant further argues Chang does not disclose alternative (a) since Chang’s baffle part extends “’toward another one of the fan blades next to it’, i.e., in the tangential direction … which is neither the suction-side direction nor the pressure-side direction”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The sides of the blades facing adjacent blades are the suction and pressure sides of the blades making each “tangential direction” a respective one of the suction side direction and the pressure side direction.
Regarding claims 21 and 39, the Applicant further argues Chang does not disclose alternative (b) since “CHANG nowhere discloses that any baffle structure extends an equal distance on the pressure side and the suction side of the same blade element” with claims 8-9 of Chang describing “at most, the existence of baffles direction in both pressure-side and suction-side directions, without any disclosure of equal extension”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chang explicitly discloses in claim 9 that the baffle part extends in pressure and suction side directions “equal widths”.
Regarding claims 21 and 39, the Applicant further argues Chang does not disclose all limitations of the claim as “CHANG is not ‘capable of generating a respiratory air flow for carrying out respiration therapy’ … nor is CHANG’s fan impeller ‘capable of generating a respiratory airflow’” as “CHANG nowhere addresses the low-flow, low-static-pressure, low-noise operating regime characteristic of respiratory-therapy devices” and relying on MPEP 2111.02(II) and 2114(II) “is not, in these circumstances, sufficient to carry the rejection” since “functional language must be supported by structure that is in fact capable of the recited function”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the invention of Chang is incapable of performing the claimed function is mere attorney argument unsupported by evidence and attorney argument is not evidence. The structure disclosed by Chang is capable of the claimed functions since Chang discloses all the structural limitations of the claims, see MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 22, the Applicant argues Chang does not disclose all limitations of the claim since claim 22 “requires the alternative (a) – winglet direction only on one side – applies” since the “Office Action does not – and cannot – explain how CHANG’s tangentially-directed- blade-to-blade baffle qualifies as a structure directed ‘only in a direction of a suction side or only in a direction of a pressure side’ of the blade element”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The direction of the sides of the blade facing another blade are the directions of suction and pressure sides as described above and the baffle of Chang is clearly shown in Figures 6-9/11-13, and explicitly disclosed in claim 2, as extending from only one side.
Regarding rejections involving Sarvanne:
Regarding claims 21 and 39, the Applicant argues the disclosure of Sarvanne “is not ‘capable of generating a respiratory air flow for carrying out respiration therapy’ … nor a fan impeller ‘capable of generating a respiratory airflow’” since the impeller of Sarvanne is “designed and dimensioned for the high-solids, low-lift sewage-pumping regime. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the impeller of Sarvanne is incapable of performing the claimed function is mere attorney argument unsupported by evidence and attorney argument is not evidence. The structure disclosed by Sarvanne is capable of the claimed functions since Sarvanne discloses all the structural limitations of the claims, see MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claims 21 and 39, the Applicant further argues Sarvanne does not disclose at least one winglet “running at least in part on at least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element” since the flanges (4) are disclosed by Sarvanne “as being provided ‘at the edges of the vanes’ and as being ‘essentially perpendicular to the vane surface’”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is clearly shown in Figures 2, 4, and 6 of Sarvanne, flange (4) extends along a radial length of the blade on an axial longitudinal side of the blades.
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant further argues Sarvanne does not disclose alternative (c) since the mapping of alternative (c) to Sarvanne “proceeds by an unsupported drawing-measurement/dimensional-inference analysis” and the conversion used in the rejections “is dimensionally and geometrically incorrect” since “Bmax in SARVANNE is described as a linear flange width (a radial/axial dimension of the flange), not as an arc length along the circumference of the impeller” and “[d]ividing a width-to-diameter ratio through π does not yield an arc-to-circumference ratio”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mapping of alternative (c) to Sarvanne does not rely on the drawings of Sarvanne. Sarvanne makes no disclosure that the width (B) is a linear measurement as alleged by the Applicant, only that it increases uniformly to a maximum value (Bmax) “at said outer circumference” (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant further argues Sarvanne does not disclose alternative (d) (constant rate of width increase from radial interior to radial exterior) since the portions of Sarvanne cited in the rejection “describe a single width parameter (a maximum), not a profile of width-versus-radius, and certainly not a constant rate of increase”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sarvanne explicitly discloses in the cited passages that the width (B) “increases uniformly” from zero, i.e. at a radially inner end of flange (4), to a maximum “at said outer circumference (7)”.
Regarding rejections involving Van Doorn:
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant argues the fan of Van Doorn “is not a fan ‘capable of generating a respiratory air flow for carrying out respiration therapy’” since “VAN DOORN is a centrifugal fan for entraining and conveying solid industrial material”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the impeller of Van Doorn is incapable of performing the claimed function is mere attorney argument unsupported by evidence and attorney argument is not evidence. The structure disclosed by Van Doorn is capable of the claimed functions since Van Doorn discloses all the structural limitations of the claim, see MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant further argues Van Doorn does not disclose “at least one winglet running at least in part on a least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element” since the mapping of the winglet and blade element “treats two adjoining portions of a single, unitary blade structure (blade 22 in VAN DOORN) as separate ‘blade element’ and ‘winglet’ for purpose of the claim” which “is not consistent with the use of ‘winglet’ throughout the instant specification, where the term consistently denotes an additional element extending from a blade element, not a sub-region of one blade element delineated by an arbitrary line drawn for purposes of the rejection” and “line 26 as disclosed in Fig. 3 does not align with at least one axial longitudinal side of a blade. In fact, line 26 is angled away from the axis of the blade 22”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Leading section (22a) and trailing plate portion (22b) are distinct from each other, with line (26) representing the junction between the two and there is no disclosure by the Applicant nor teaching in the prior art that would preclude such a mapping. Furthermore, leading section (22a) is disclosed by Van Doorn as being a flat plate which “lies in a plane generally parallel to the axis of the hub 19” for which, being flat, any line formed thereon must be aligned with an axial longitudinal side of leading section (22a).
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant further argues Van Doorn does not disclose alternative (d) (constant rate of width increase) since the mapping to Van Doorn used in the rejections “is, on its face, a drawing-measurement argument”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. No measurement of the drawings is necessary as both line (26) and trailing edge (22c) are reasonably disclosed by Van Doorn as being linear and the distance between two diverging linear lines must occur at a constant rate.
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant further argues Van Doorn does not disclose alternative (e) (winglet extends over an entire length of the blade element) since it “depends on the underlying mapping of one section of blade 22 (blade portion 22b) as the ‘winglet’ and the other section (leading section 22a) as the ‘blade element’” for which the claim requires the winglet “extend over the entire length of the blade element” for which the rejection’s “own mapping disclaims (the ‘blade portion 22b’ extends, by the Office Action’s mapping, over only a portion of the radial extend of blade 22)”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mapping of blade element and winglet to Van Doorn is proper as described above. As is clearly disclosed by Van Doorn, the trailing plate portion (22b) extends from the radially inner end of leading section (22a), i.e. where connection of trailing plate portion (22b) and hub (19) at weld (27) intersects weld line (23) of leading section (22a), all the way to a radially outer end of leading section (22a), i.e. at radially outer end of line (26), as best seen in Figure 3.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, the Applicant ostensibly argues Van Doorn does not disclose all limitations of the claim since Van Doorn is non-analogous art as the fan of Van Doorn is “a textile-material handling fan”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 USC 102, see MPWP 2141.01(a).
For the reasons above, the rejections are hereby maintained.
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) 21-24, 36, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20070116576 to Chang.
(a) Regarding claim 21:
(i) Chang discloses an appliance (see title), wherein:
the appliance comprises at least one fan (see title),
the at least one fan comprising at least one rotatable fan impeller (hub 21 and fan blades 22, Fig 6) comprising a plurality of blade elements (fan blades 22, Fig 6),
at least some of the plurality of blade elements being equipped with in each case at least one winglet (baffle part 224, Figs 6/8-9/11-16) running at least in part on at least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element (at least one of first end 222 and second end edge 223, Figs 6/8-9/11-16), and
wherein (a) and (b) applies:
(a) the at least one winglet is directed only in a direction of a suction side or only in a direction of a pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Figs 6-9/11-13, claim 2),
(b) the at least one winglet is directed in a direction of a pressure side and a suction side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Fig 16, claims 8-9) and is arranged on the at least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element in such a way that the at least one winglet extends in any direction associated with the suction side a distance equal to a distance the at least one winglet extends in any direction associated with the pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (claim 9).
(ii) The recitation “wherein the appliance is suitable for use in respiration therapy” in the preamble is merely the intended use of the applicant which does not give meaning and purpose to the apparatus and does not constitute a limitation of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
(iii) The limitation “capable of generating a respiratory air flow for carrying out respiration therapy” is functional language regarding the use of the fan. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. As Chang discloses all structural limitations of the claim, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed invention is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from a prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
(b) Regarding claim 22:
(i) Chang discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Chang further discloses wherein at least (a) applies (see rejection of claim 21 above).
(c) Regarding claim 23:
(i) Chang discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Chang further discloses wherein at least (a) applies and the at least one winglet is directed only in a direction of a suction side or only in a direction of a pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Figs 6-9/11-13, claim 2).
(d) Regarding claim 24:
(i) Chang discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Chang further discloses wherein at least (b) applies (see rejection of claim 21 above).
(e) Regarding claim 36:
(i) Chang discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Chang further discloses wherein the at least some of the plurality of blade elements are straight (at least straight in an axial direction, Figs 6-8/11-16).
(f) Regarding claim 39:
(i) Chang discloses a fan impeller (hub 21 and fan blades 22, Fig 6), wherein:
at least some of the plurality of blade elements being equipped with in each case at least one winglet (baffle part 224, Figs 6/8-9/11-16) running at least in part on at least one axial longitudinal side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (at least one of first end 222 and second end edge 223, Figs 6/8-9/11-16), and
wherein (a) and (b) applies:
(a) the at least one winglet is directed only in a direction of a suction side or only in a direction of a pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Figs 6-9/11-13, claim 2);
(a) the at least one winglet is directed in a direction of a pressure side and a suction side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Fig 16, claims 8-9) and is arranged on the at least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element in such a way that the at least one winglet extends in any direction associated with the suction side a distance equal to a distance the at least one winglet extends in any direction associated with the pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (claim 9).
(ii) The recitation “suitable for use in respiration therapy” in the preamble is merely the intended use of the applicant which does not give meaning and purpose to the apparatus and does not constitute a limitation of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
(iii) The limitation “capable of generating a respiratory air flow for carrying out respiration therapy” is functional language regarding the use of the fan impeller. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. As Chang discloses all structural limitations of the claim, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed invention is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from a prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claim(s) 21, 25-29, 32-36, and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4676718 to Sarvanne.
(a) Regarding claim 21:
(i) Sarvanne discloses an appliance (see title), wherein:
the appliance comprises at least one fan (“vortex pump”, see title and abstract),
the at least one fan comprising at least one rotatable fan impeller (impeller 2, Fig 1) comprising a plurality of blade elements (vanes 5, Figs 1-7),
at least some of the plurality of blade elements being equipped with in each case at least one winglet (flanges 4, Figs 1-7) running at least in part on at least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element (Figs 1-7), and
wherein (a), (c), and (d) applies:
(a) the at least one winglet is directed only in a direction of a suction side or only in a direction of a pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Figs 1-5);
(c) the at least one winglet, at any location along the at least some of the plurality of blade elements, occupies a circle sector of a total circumference of the at least one fan impeller which ranges from 1/360 to 20/360 of the total circumference of the at least one fan impeller (flange 4 has width Bmax that has a ratio with impeller diameter d2 wherein Bmax/d2 = 0.03-0.20 or 0.07-0.14 which corresponds to a circle sector of the total circumference of [3.4-22.9]/360 or [8.0-16.0]/360, as shown in the equations below).
B
m
a
x
d
2
=
0.03
t
o
0.20
o
r
0.07
t
o
0.14
B
m
a
x
=
0.03
t
o
0.20
*
d
2
o
r
0.07
t
o
0.14
*
d
2
wherein the circle sector of a total circumference (C) is:
B
m
a
x
C
=
B
m
a
x
d
2
*
π
=
0.03
t
o
0.20
*
d
2
o
r
0.07
t
o
0.14
*
d
2
d
2
*
π
wherein the diameters d2 in the numerator and denominator cancel out, therefore:
B
m
a
x
C
=
0.03
t
o
0.20
*
d
2
o
r
0.07
t
o
0.14
π
=
0.0095
t
o
0.064
o
r
(
8.02
t
o
16.04
)
which when C=360/360 correlates to:
0.0095
t
o
0.064
*
360
o
r
8.02
t
o
16.04
*
360
360
=
3.4
t
o
22.9
o
r
(
8.0
t
o
16.0
)
360
(d) a width of the at least one winglet increases at a constant rate in a direction from a radial interior of the at least one fan impeller to a radial exterior of the at least one fan impeller (claim 1; Col 3 Lns 15-17).
(ii) The recitation “wherein the appliance is suitable for use in respiration therapy” in the preamble is merely the intended use of the applicant which does not give meaning and purpose to the apparatus and does not constitute a limitation of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
(iii) The limitation “capable of generating a respiratory air flow for carrying out respiration therapy” is functional language regarding the use of the fan. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. As Sarvanne discloses all structural limitations of the claim, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed invention is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from a prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
(b) Regarding claim 25:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein at least (c) applies (see rejection of claim 21 above).
(c) Regarding claim 26:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 25.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least one winglet, at any location along the at least some of the plurality of blade elements, occupies a circle sector of a total circumference of the at least one fan impeller which ranges from 5/360 to 15/360 of the total circumference of the at least one fan impeller (8/360 to 16/360, see rejection of claim 21 above).
(d) Regarding claim 27:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 25.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least one winglet, at any location along the at least some of the plurality of blade elements, occupies a circle sector of a total circumference of the at least one fan impeller which ranges from 8/360 to 12/360 of the total circumference of the at least one fan impeller (8/360 to 16/360, see rejection of claim 21 above).
(e) Regarding claim 28:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 25.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least one winglet is directed in a direction of a pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Figs 4-7).
(f) Regarding claim 29:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein at least (d) applies (see rejection of claim 21 above).
(g) Regarding claim 32:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least one fan impeller is equipped on only one axial side with at least one disk which is configured as a support disk for at least partially securing the plurality of blade elements and/or is configured as a cover disk for at least partially covering the plurality of blade elements in terms of flow technology (disc of impeller 2 supporting/covering vanes 5, Figs 1/3-7).
(h) Regarding claim 33:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 32.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least one disk is arranged only on that axial side of the at least one fan impeller which lies opposite an axial side of the at least one fan impeller equipped with the at least one winglet (Figs 1/3-7).
(i) Regarding claim 34:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 32.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least one disk is configured as a support disk (disc of impeller 2 integrally formed with, i.e. supports, vanes 5; Figs 1/3-7).
(j) Regarding claim 35:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 32.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least some of the plurality of blade elements are arranged within a circumference of the at least one disk and do not protrude beyond the circumference of the at least one disk (Figs 1-2/4/6; claim 1, Col 3 Lns 15-17).
(k) Regarding claim 36:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least some of the plurality of blade elements are straight (at least straight in an axial direction, Figs 3/5/7).
(l) Regarding claim 38:
(i) Savanne discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least one winglet has a smaller material thickness than the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (reasonably disclosed in Figs 3/5/7).
(m) Regarding claim 39:
(i) Sarvanne discloses a fan impeller (impeller 2, Fig 1), wherein:
the appliance comprises at least one fan (“vortex pump”, see title and abstract),
the fan impeller comprises a plurality of blade elements (vanes 5, Figs 1-7),
at least some of the plurality of blade elements being equipped with in each case at least one winglet (flanges 4, Figs 1-7) running at least in part on at least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element (Figs 1-7), and
wherein (a), (c), and (d) applies:
(a) the at least one winglet is directed only in a direction of a suction side or only in a direction of a pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Figs 1-5);
(c) the at least one winglet, at any location along the at least some of the plurality of blade elements, occupies a circle sector of a total circumference of the at least one fan impeller which ranges from 1/360 to 20/360 of the total circumference of the at least one fan impeller (flange 4 has width Bmax that has a ratio with impeller diameter d2 wherein Bmax/d2 = 0.03-0.20 or 0.07-0.14 which corresponds to a circle sector of the total circumference of [3.4-22.9]/360 or [8.0-16.0]/360, as shown in the equations below).
B
m
a
x
d
2
=
0.03
t
o
0.20
o
r
0.07
t
o
0.14
B
m
a
x
=
0.03
t
o
0.20
*
d
2
o
r
0.07
t
o
0.14
*
d
2
wherein the circle sector of a total circumference (C) is:
B
m
a
x
C
=
B
m
a
x
d
2
*
π
=
0.03
t
o
0.20
*
d
2
o
r
0.07
t
o
0.14
*
d
2
d
2
*
π
wherein the diameters d2 in the numerator and denominator cancel out, therefore:
B
m
a
x
C
=
0.03
t
o
0.20
*
d
2
o
r
0.07
t
o
0.14
π
=
0.0095
t
o
0.064
o
r
(
8.02
t
o
16.04
)
which when C=360/360 correlates to:
0.0095
t
o
0.064
*
360
o
r
8.02
t
o
16.04
*
360
360
=
3.4
t
o
22.9
o
r
(
8.0
t
o
16.0
)
360
(d) a width of the at least one winglet increases at a constant rate in a direction from a radial interior of the at least one fan impeller to a radial exterior of the at least one fan impeller (claim 1; Col 3 Lns 15-17).
(ii) The recitation “wherein the appliance is suitable for use in respiration therapy” in the preamble is merely the intended use of the applicant which does not give meaning and purpose to the apparatus and does not constitute a limitation of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
(iii) The limitation “capable of generating a respiratory air flow for carrying out respiration therapy” is functional language regarding the use of the fan. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. As Sarvanne discloses all structural limitations of the claim, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed invention is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from a prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
(n) Regarding claim 40:
(i) Savanne discloses the fan impeller of claim 39.
(ii) Savanne further discloses wherein the at least one winglet, at any location along the at least some of the plurality of blade elements, occupies a circle sector of a total circumference of the at least one fan impeller which ranges from 5/360 to 15/360 of the total circumference of the at least one fan impeller (8/360 to 16/360, see rejection of claim 21 above).
Claim(s) 21 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3746465 to Van Doorn.
(a) Regarding claim 21:
(i) Van Doorn discloses an appliance (see abstract), wherein:
the appliance comprises at least one fan (see title),
the at least one fan comprising at least one rotatable fan impeller (central hub portion 19, back plate 21, blades 22; Figs 2-3) comprising a plurality of blade elements (leading section 22a, Figs 2-3),
at least some of the plurality of blade elements being equipped with in each case at least one winglet (blade portion 22b, Figs 2-3) running at least in part on at least one axial longitudinal side of the blade element (line 26, Fig 3), and
wherein (a), (d), and (e) applies:
(a) the at least one winglet is directed only in a direction of a suction side or only in a direction of a pressure side of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Fig 3);
(d) a width of the at least one winglet increases at a constant rate in a direction from a radial interior of the at least one fan impeller to a radial exterior of the at least one fan impeller (width defined as distance between line 26 and edge 22c, both of which reasonably disclosed as being linear, i.e. the distance between them increases linearly; Fig 3);
(e) the at least one winglet extends over an entire length of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Fig 3).
(ii) The recitation “wherein the appliance is suitable for use in respiration therapy” in the preamble is merely the intended use of the applicant which does not give meaning and purpose to the apparatus and does not constitute a limitation of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
(iii) The limitation “capable of generating a respiratory air flow for carrying out respiration therapy” is functional language regarding the use of the fan. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. As Sarvanne discloses all structural limitations of the claim, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed invention is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from a prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
(b) Regarding claim 29:
(i) Van Doorn discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Van Doorn further discloses wherein at least (d) applies (see rejection of claim 21 above).
(c) Regarding claim 30:
(i) Van Doorn discloses the appliance of claim 21.
(ii) Van Doorn further discloses wherein at least (e) applies (see rejection of claim 21 above).
(d) Regarding claim 31:
(i) Van Doorn discloses the appliance of claim 29.
(ii) Van Doorn further discloses wherein the at least one winglet extends over an entire length of the at least some of the plurality of blade elements (Fig 3).
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 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070116576 to Chang in view of US 10161412 to Kim.
(a) Regarding claim 37:
(i) Chang discloses the appliance of claim 21. (ii) Chang does not disclose wherein the at least one fan impeller is produced in one piece with the at least one winglet by an injection molding method.
(iii) Kim is also in the field of fans (see title) and teaches:
a fan impeller (fan assembly 1) comprising a disk (hub 23 and/or hub plate 3) supporting a plurality of blade elements (blades 20),
wherein the plurality of blade elements are integrally attached to a winglet (ring connecting blades 20 of blade assembly 2; see abstract),
wherein the fan impeller is produced in one piece with the winglets by an injection molding method (blade assembly 2 formed integrally by injection molding, Col 4 Lns 18-23; alternatively, if hub plate 3 is interpreted as analogous to disk of the claimed invention, both blade assembly 2 and hub plate 3 are formed by injection molding, see Col 8 Lns 14-15, which are later connected via welding, i.e. blade assembly 2 and hub plate 3 are integrally formed).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fan impeller to be integrally formed with the at least one winglet as disclosed by Chang by injection molding as taught by Kim for the purpose of reducing manufacturing costs/times, preventing deterioration of a quality of products (Col 14 Lns 11-13), reducing processes of manufacturing the fan impeller and reducing potential imbalances of the impeller (Col 14 Lns 39-43).
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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 Wiehe can be reached at (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 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights