DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 17, 19 – 21 and 23 – 27 are pending and currently being examined.
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 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: “mechanical connection” in claim 1, “connecting element” in Claim 17 and “fastening regions for fastening” in Claim 19.
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 § 112
The previously made 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn in view of cancellation of Claim 22.
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23 – 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hub (PG Pub US 20180142700 A1) in view of Gerken (PG Pub US 20020182079 A1) and in view of Terasaki (US Patent 5,529,457 A) and further in view of Bushnell (US Patent 6,050,773 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2b of Hub
In Re Claim 1, the Figure 2b embodiment of Hub discloses a support module (9; Figure 2b; there are four depicted struts adjacent to each chamfered corner) for a fan (title), comprising: a motor (paragraph [0103]); a fan impeller (1, 15; Figure 1A) driven in rotation by the motor (paragraph [0057]), wherein the motor is non-rotatably mounted with the fan impeller on or in a generally planer base plate (11) via connecting elements (although Figure 2b does not show the motor and connecting elements, Figure 6C shows four connecting elements 24/22 that connect to the motor) and is held at a distance relative to a nozzle plate (12) on an inflow side by means of a plurality of individual struts (10) extending between the base plate (11) and the nozzle plate (12), wherein each individual strut (10) is a single piece element free of connection to other struts and has a first end mechanically affixed to the planar base plate (11) and a second end mechanically affixed to the nozzle plate (12), wherein the struts (10) connect the base plate and nozzle plate free of other connection between the base plate (11) and the nozzle plate (12) as depicted, wherein the base plate has a quadrangular or polygonal contour (paragraph [0066]: “rectangular geometry”) as depicted with chamfered corners (see annotated figure above), wherein the struts are profiled (“airfoil”; paragraph [0010]) with an inflow edge and outflow edge (paragraphs [0057],[0066],[0068]-[0073],[0088],[0103],[0106]-[0154]; Figure 2B). Hub inherently has one sound pressure curve with the strut and another without the strut, and the sub-harmonic sound increase area would reduce with the strut (as compared to without the strut) because the airfoil shape of the struts reduces noise.
Although the struts of Hub are connected to the base plate and nozzle plate, and Hub discloses screws as mechanical fixing elements that connect various components, Hub does not explicitly disclose that the connection between the base plate and nozzle plate is via a mechanical connection (such as screws; note that the limitation “mechanical connection” invokes 35 USC 112 f).
However, Gerken discloses a base plate (13) and a nozzle plate (15), wherein struts (11) connect at a first end to the base plate (13) and at a second end to the nozzle plate (15) via screws (17) which is a mechanical connection (paragraph [0025]; Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the connecting means between the struts and the base plate/nozzle plate of Hub with the mechanical connection between the struts and the base plate/nozzle plate as taught by Gerken because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly described connection of Hub with the specifically described connection of Gerken, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Although the struts of Hub have been disclosed as having an airfoil cross-sectional contour, it does not explicitly disclose that the leading edge angle is greater than the trailing edge angle.
PNG
media_image2.png
816
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Figure 9 (annotated above) of Terasaki discloses a cross-sectional contour of a strut (4) that has an inflow edge (vertex of angle β1) and an outflow edge (vertex of angle β2), wherein a leading edge angle (90° - β1, because β1 is defined using the radial direction as one side of the angle – and the radial direction is perpendicular to the circumferential direction) of the strut (4), as measured between an inflow profile centerline (the solid line side of angle β1, it extends from a known camber line which intersects the inflow edge) of the inflow edge (vertex of angle β1) of the strut (4) and a first local circumferential direction (the circumferential direction is perpendicular to the disclosed radial direction {dashed line of angle β1}, see annotation in figure above) of the impeller (1), is greater (β2 > β1 {Column 3, Lines 53 – 58}; therefore 90° - β1 > 90° - β2) than a trailing edge angle (90° - β2, because β2 is defined using the radial direction as one side of the angle – and the radial direction is perpendicular to the circumferential direction) of an outflow profile centerline (the solid line side of angle β2, it extends from a known camber line which intersects the inflow edge) of the outflow edge (vertex of angle β2) of the strut (4) and a second local circumferential direction (the circumferential direction is perpendicular to the disclosed radial direction {dashed line of angle β1}, see annotation in figure above) of the impeller (1)(Column 3, Lines 41 – 61).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to design the cross-sectional contour of each of the struts of Hub such that the leading edge angle is greater than the trailing edge angle as taught by Terasaki because it is only a matter of a change in magnitude of the angles. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As discussed above, the examiner first contends that the airfoil shape of the struts reduces a sub-harmonic sound increase area in a sound pressure curve. Alternatively, if it is not clear to applicant that the sub-harmonic sound increase area would reduce with the strut as compared to without the strut (not admitted to):
PNG
media_image3.png
607
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Bushnell
However, Bushnell discloses a fan (131; Figure 6), comprising: a motor; a fan impeller driven in rotation by the motor, strut (151) extending from the base plate (110), wherein the strut is positioned in the flow generated by the fan impeller such that interaction between impeller blades of the fan impeller and the strut (151) leads to a reduction of at least one sub-harmonic sound increase area (see annotated Figure above, the shaded area between peaks represents the amount of reduction) in a sound pressure curve (Figure 1: “WITH VANE”) resulting from use of the fan compared to a corresponding sound pressure curve of an identical fan lacking such struts (Figure 1: WITHOUT VANE” (Column 6, Lines 26 – 32 and 35 – 37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to adjust the struts of Zheng such that the sub-harmonic sound increase area is smaller than the sub-harmonic sound increase area without the struts as taught by Bushnell because the sound pressure level in a low-frequency range will be felt as uncomfortable noise for human ear.
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses that the struts (10) are airfoils (“airfoil”; paragraph [0010]), the conventional airfoil shape has a varying thickness in cross section.
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses an airfoil cross section contour (paragraph [0010]) for each strut which conventionally has a rounded leading (inflow) edge and a tapered trailing (outflow) edge, and has a curvature and non-constant thickness between the inflow edge and the outflow edge, and Terasaki also discloses that the struts each have an cross-sectional contour having a curvature and non-constant thickness between the inflow edge and the outflow edge.
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses that the struts (10) are airfoils (“airfoil”; paragraph [0010]), the conventional airfoil shape cross section has a rounded edge at the leading edge.
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses that the struts (10) are airfoils (“airfoil”; paragraph [0010]), the conventional airfoil shape cross section a convexly curved suction-side surface and concavely curved pressure-side surface.
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses that the struts (10) are being arranged radially outside an air outlet (circumference of the impeller blades where air exits the impeller) of the fan impeller on an outflow side (radially outward of the blades circumference), parallel to (10 extends in a direction which is parallel to an axis of rotation) an impeller axis of rotation (which is also the central axis of the apparatus).
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub clearly discloses more than 4 struts in Figure 2b.
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and the struts (10) of Hub support and hold the base plate (11) and the motor (paragraph [0103]) with the impeller (1, 15; Figure 1A) on the nozzle plate (12) as shown in Figure 6c.
In Re Claim 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses that side parts (one or more of the struts 10 can be designated as side parts) are provided in or adjacent to corner regions (all four corners as shown in Figure 2b) of the nozzle plate (12), which extend between the nozzle plate (12) and the base plate (11), the side parts being arranged radially outside an air outlet (circumference of the impeller blades where air exits the impeller) of the fan impeller on an outflow side (radially outward of the blades circumference), parallel to (10 extends in a direction which is parallel to an axis of rotation) an impeller axis of rotation (which is also the central axis of the apparatus).
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Hub discloses in Figure 2b that the side parts (one or more of the struts 10 can be designated as side parts) are arranged adjacent to the corner regions between the nozzle plate (12) and the base plate (11).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses at least 8 side parts (at least two in each corner) in Figure 2b.
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and the side parts (one or more of the struts 10 can be designated as side parts) of Hub support and hold the base plate (11) and the motor (paragraph [0103]) with the impeller (1, 15; Figure 1A) on the nozzle plate (12).
In Re Claim 19, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Hub discloses that the struts / side parts (10; Figure 2b) have fastening regions at their ends for fixing to corresponding fastening regions of the base plate (11) and on the nozzle plate (12) (paragraph [0073]); Gerken discloses the connection being made by screwing (17).
In Re Claim 21, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses that the nozzle plate (12; paragraphs [0020],[0061]) is made of sheet metal (paragraphs [0021],[0061]) and base plate (11; paragraph [0088]) is made of plastic (paragraph [0088]).
In Re Claim 23, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and in Figure 6c of Hub, a line drawn from the center of the nozzle plate (12) to the corner of the nozzle plate (12) defines the claimed radial extent, the struts (10) in the installation space are clearly within the radial extent as shown in Figure 6c.
In Re Claim 24, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Bushnell further discloses in a comparison of a suction- side narrow-band noise pressure spectra (Figure 1, note that the strut 151 is on the suction side of the fan 131) of a fan with the support module (Figure 1: “WITH VANE”) and an otherwise identical fan in which the support module (Figure 1: “WITHOUT VANE”) has been replaced by a motor suspension (casing 110 reads on a motor suspension; Figure 4 shows portion of the casing without the strut 151) with a volumetric flow rate (Column 2, Line 67 discloses flow velocity which is tantamount to volumetric flow rate) which lies on a fan characteristic curve for constant speed (“n” disclosed in Column 2, Lines 64 – 65) in a range of pressure increases (Figure 1, range of “0” to “1” on the abscissa), in the case of the noise pressure spectrum corresponding to the fan with the support module, the maximum sub-harmonic noise pressure increase in a frequency range between about 40 % and 60 % of a first blade repetition frequency (“BPF” in Figure 1 at a value = 1 on the abscissa) per visual inspection of Figure 1 is at least 3 dB lower (Figure 1: it is about 5 db lower – drop from about 43 db to 38 db; see annotated Figure 1 above).
Although the drop of at least 3 dB of Bushnell does not occur at 70 % and 80 % of the first blade repetition frequency (it occurs between 40 % and 60 %), it is only a matter of optimizing a range of frequencies which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further, the claimed range of 70% to 90% appears to be a matter of obvious design choice because it is not clear what the criticality of this range is, and it appears that the invention would work equally well if the range was 40 % to 60 % as disclosed by Bushnell.
In Re Claim 25, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses a fan (title) with a motor (paragraph [0103]) and a fan impeller (1, 15; Figure 1A) driven in rotation by the motor (paragraph [0103]).
In Re Claim 27, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Gerken discloses that each individual strut (11) is mechanically connected to the planar base plate (13) and the nozzle plate (15) via screws (17) extending through the planar base plate (13) and the nozzle plate (15) and into the first and second ends of the individual strut (11) and extending into an interior of the strut (paragraph [0025]; Figure 2).
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hub (PG Pub US 20180142700 A1) in view of Gerken (PG Pub US 20020182079 A1) and in view of Terasaki (US Patent 5,529,457 A) and in view of Bushnell (US Patent 6,050,773 A) and further in view of Babinsky (PG Pub US 20120068021 A1).
In Re Claim 2, Hub, Gerken, Terasaki and Bushnell disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and although Hub discloses a curvature in cross section (airfoil shape) but they do not disclose that the shape and orientation can be adjusted.
However, Babinsky discloses a strut (6) including a movable portion (6B) and (6A), the struts (6A, 6B) have a curvature (paragraph [0030]: “curved profile”) in cross section (paragraph [0010] discloses an aerofoil {airfoil} shape) and their shape and orientation are adjusted according to the flow conditions after the air has exited radially from the fan impeller (the shape is and orientation is changed when the movable portion 6B is rotated relative to fixed portion 6A as stated in paragraph [0033]; paragraph [0041] states that resistance to flow can be increased or reduced by moving the vanes, i.e. the movable portion of the struts to cause preferential flow).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the struts of Hub in the device of Hub / Gerken / Terasaki / Bushnell such that they have a movable portion as taught by Babinsky for the purpose of causing preferential flow (paragraph [0041] of Babinsky).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hub (PG Pub US 20180142700 A1) in view of Gerken (PG Pub US 20020182079 A1) and in view of Terasaki (US Patent 5,529,457 A) and in view of Bushnell (US Patent 6,050,773 A) and further in view of Kobayashi (US Patent 5,558,499 A).
In Re Claim 10, Hub, Gerken, Terasaki and Bushnell disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses that the struts (10) are airfoils (paragraph [0010]), but it does not disclose that the airfoil shaped struts are made of aluminum profiles or steel sheets.
However, Kobayashi discloses an airfoil shaped blade (1; Figure 2) that are made of steel or aluminum sheet by press working (Column 1, Lines 23 – 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to make the aerofoil {airfoil} shaped struts of Hub / Gerken /Terasaki / Bushnell from aluminum profiles or steel sheets as taught by Kobayashi because this makes it possible to provide a blower wheel which is more lightweight, quiet and efficient in operation and lower cost in manufacturing (Column 3, Lines 27 – 30 of Kobayashi).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hub (PG Pub US 20180142700 A1) in view of Gerken (PG Pub US 20020182079 A1) and in view of Terasaki (US Patent 5,529,457 A) and in view of Bushnell (US Patent 6,050,773 A) and further in view of Japiske (PG Pub US 20140205458 A1).
In Re Claim 12, Hub, Gerken, Terasaki and Bushnell disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, but they do not disclose that the side part aligned at its leading edge with the corresponding strut at its trailing edge.
However, Figure 4 of Japiske discloses a stationary airfoil (404) that is located at a distance from stationary airfoil (408) and trailing edge of airfoil (404) is aligned with leading edge of airfoil (408)(paragraph [0045]; Figure 4). Paragraph [0031] discloses a fan/centrifugal machine and an adjacent flow guide (such as the diffuser of Figure 4). Further, paragraph [0045] states that the loading coefficient level is lowered, which at least contributes to forming an aerodynamically effective unit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to rearrange the placement of the struts and side parts of Hub / Gerken / Terasaki / Bushnell such that the leading edge of the side part is aligned with the trailing edge of the corresponding strut as taught by Japiske for the purpose of lowering the loading coefficient (paragraph [0045] of Japiske).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hub (PG Pub US 20180142700 A1) in view of Gerken (PG Pub US 20020182079 A1) and in view of Terasaki (US Patent 5,529,457 A) and in view of Bushnell (US Patent 6,050,773 A) and further in view of Kobayashi (US Patent 5,558,499 A).
In Re Claim 14, Hub, Gerken, Terasaki and Bushnell disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Hub discloses that the struts (10) are airfoils (paragraph [0010]), but they do not disclose that the airfoil shaped side parts are made of flat metal sheets.
However, Kobayashi discloses an airfoil shaped blade (1; Figure 2) that are made of steel or aluminum sheet by press working (Column 1, Lines 23 – 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to make the airfoil shaped struts of Hub / Gerken / Terasaki / Bushnell from steel sheets as taught by Kobayashi because this makes it possible to provide a blower wheel which is more lightweight, quiet and efficient in operation and lower cost in manufacturing (Column 3, Lines 27 – 30 of Kobayashi).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hub (PG Pub US 20180142700 A1) in view of Gerken (PG Pub US 20020182079 A1) and in view of Terasaki (US Patent 5,529,457 A) and in view of Bushnell (US Patent 6,050,773 A) and further in view of Babinsky (PG Pub US 20120068021 A1).
In Re Claim 17, Hub, Gerken, Terasaki and Bushnell discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, but they do not disclose a connecting element between the side part and corresponding strut.
However, Figure 4 of Babinsky discloses mutually associated struts (6A) and side parts (6B) are connected to one another in pairs by a connecting element (hinges; paragraph [0012]; the hinges are an equivalent structure to applicant’s disclosed connecting element 16 depicted in Figure 7 as a hinge – MPEP 2183), in a specific arrangement and alignment with one another (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the struts/side parts of Hub / Gerken / Terasaki / Bushnell such that mutually associated struts and side parts are connected to one another in pairs by connecting means as taught by Babinsky for the purpose of causing preferential flow of fluid in a desired direction (paragraph [0041] of Babinsky).
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hub (PG Pub US 20180142700 A1) in view of Gerken (PG Pub US 20020182079 A1) and in view of Terasaki (US Patent 5,529,457 A) and in view of Bushnell (US Patent 6,050,773 A) and further in view of Matson (US Patent 6,074,182 A).
In Re Claim 20, Hub, Gerken / Terasaki and Bushnell disclose all the limitations of Claim 19, but they do not disclose edge folds.
PNG
media_image4.png
639
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Matson
However, Figure 4 of Matson discloses the fastening provisions on the nozzle plate (32A) and the base plate (34A) are associated with respective edge folds (shaded areas in annotated figure above) which also stiffen or stabilize the two plates (these are functional limitations that are met by a folded structure)(Column 7, Lines 1 – 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the nozzle plate and base plate of Hub / Gerken / Terasaki / Bushnell such that they have edge folds as taught by Matson for the purpose of aligning the plates into position during assembly (the folds form an enclosure that can be placed over the struts / side parts in alignment before they are secured by the screws, without the folds the plates would be free to move laterally).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hub (PG Pub US 20180142700 A1) in view of Gerken (PG Pub US 20020182079 A1) and in view of Terasaki (US Patent 5,529,457 A) and in view of Bushnell (US Patent 6,050,773 A) and further in view of Sakai (PG Pub US 20030053911 A1).
In Re Claim 26, Hub, Gerken, Terasaki and Bushnell disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and although Terasaki discloses that the leading edge angle is greater than the trailing edge angle, Hub, Gerken, Terasaki and Bushnell do not disclose the specific ranges for the angles.
However, Figure 4B and paragraphs [0053]-[0054] of Sakai disclose specific ranges of leading edge angle (θ4) and trailing edge angle (θ2), and establishes these angles as result effective variables because the disclosed ranges have improved fan performance and reduced noise levels (paragraphs [0004]-[0010]). Note that the disclosed range of θ4 is at least 10 degrees greater than the disclosed range of θ2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to design the leading edge angle and trailing edge angle of Hub / Gerken / Terasaki / Bushnell such that they are in the claimed range(s) because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (as established by Sakai) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746