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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 05/14/2020 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 10/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 21-40 remain pending. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered and were found persuasive. However, the amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
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
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