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 amendments filed 9/4/2025 are entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 1-12, the independent claims seem to repeat the phrase “the guide member directs the air flow toward the axis of rotation.” Appropriate correction is required. The Examiner defers to previous rejections regarding this previously rejected language.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokote et al. (US 10118502 B2; hereinafter Yokote) in view of Sato (CN 107850324 A) and Hara (JP 2005098657 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yokote teaches a ventilation device (FIG. 1A, temperature conditioning unit 10) for a vehicle (see title) ventilation, heating and/or air-conditioning system, comprising at least one housing (FIG. 1A, housing 300), which includes at least one wall (FIG. 1A, the wall of the housing 300) defining an inner volume (FIG. 1A, the volume within the housing 300), in which at least one radial propeller (FIG. 1A, centrifugal blower 100) capable of being rotated are accommodated, the at least one radial propeller being configured to generate an air flow (FIG. 1A, air flow 301) having a general direction parallel to an axis of rotation (FIG. 1A, shaft center 112b) of the at least one radial propeller between an air inlet (FIG. 1A, suction hole 122) of the at least one radial propeller and an air outlet (FIG. 1A, exhaust hole 125) opening formed in the at least one wall of the at least one housing of the ventilation device, with at least part of the wall of the at least one housing being configured to straighten the air flow exiting the at least one radial propeller (FIG. 1A, the walls of the housing 300 direct the air in a straight direction).
Yokote fails to teach at least one air flow guide member, wherein the at least one airflow guide member is configured to direct the air flow toward the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller; wherein an air filter closes the air outlet opening, the guide member directs the air flow toward the axis of rotation and the air flow is distributed over substantially an entire surface of the air filter.
However, Sato teaches at least one air flow guide member (FIG. 3, static blades 60), wherein the at least one airflow guide member is configured to direct the air flow toward the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller (FIG. 3, the static blades 60 direct air toward the center of the shaft).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yokote by inserting static blades downstream of the blower, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yokote with these aforementioned teachings of Sato with the motivation of encouraging straight airflow by employing baffles that counteract the swirl effect caused by the radial fan.
Sato fails to teach that an air filter closes the air outlet opening and the air flow is distributed over substantially an entire surface of the air filter.
However, Hara teaches that an air filter (FIG. 1, filter 14) closes the air outlet opening and the air flow is distributed over substantially an entire surface of the air filter (FIG. 1).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yokote by inserting a filter downstream of the blower, as taught by Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yokote with these aforementioned teachings of Hara with the motivation of ensuring the air is as clean as possible by using a redundant number of filters.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches that the at least one air flow guide member includes a plurality of fixed blades axially disposed between the at least one radial propeller and the air outlet opening (Sato, FIGS. 2 and 3, there are multiple static blades 60 between the fan and the outlet).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches that at least one fixed blade of the air flow guide member includes at least one outer end rigidly connected to the at least one wall of the at least one housing (Sato, FIG. 3, the outer ends of static blades 60 are fixed to an exterior wall).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches that the at least one radial propeller includes a plurality of movable blades (Yokote, FIG. 3A, the centrifugal blower 100 includes a number of rotor blades 111), with each movable blade including an inner edge oriented toward the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller (Yokote, FIG. 3, the inner edges of the rotor blades 111) and an outer edge oriented away from the inner edge (Yokote, FIG. 3, the outer edges of the rotor blades 111), with at least one outer edge extending parallel to the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller (Yokote, FIG. 3, the outer edges of the rotor blades 111 is parallel with the shaft center 112b (see FIG. A below)).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. A
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches that the inner edge of each movable blade has a height, measured parallel to the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller, that is greater than a height of the outer edge of each movable blade, measured parallel to the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the height of the outer edge of the rotor blades 111 is less than the height of the inner edge of the rotor blades 111).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches that the at least one radial propeller includes a radial air outlet (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the radian outlets of the centrifugal blower 110), wherein the at least one housing of the ventilation device includes at least one upper part (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the housing portion of the centrifugal blower 110) that houses the at least one radial propeller and a lower part (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the portion of the housing 300 that includes the downstream components of the assembly) that houses the at least one air flow guide member, the at least one upper part including at least one first convex curvature (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the curve surrounding the suction hole 122) when viewed from the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller and at least one second concave curvature (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the curve near the external radius of the outer shell of the centrifugal blower 110) when viewed from the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller, the at least one first curvature covering an edge of the at least one radial propeller (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the first curve referenced above covers the inner edge of the centrifugal blower 110 near the suction hole 122) and the second curvature being arranged facing the radial air outlet of the at least one radial propeller (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the second curve referenced above covers the air outlet of the centrifugal blower 110).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches that the at least one air flow guide member includes a plurality of fixed blades (Sato, FIG. 3, the fixed blades 60), with at least one fixed blade of the at least one air flow guide member including a pressure face (Sato, FIG. 7A, the upper-left surface) and a suction face (Sato, FIG. 7A, the lower-right surface) connected together by a leading edge (Sato, FIG. 7A, the top (i.e., flow-facing) edge of the fixed blade 60) and a trailing edge (Sato, FIG. 7A, the bottom edge of the fixed blade 60), the fixed blade including a cross-section (Sato, FIG. 7A, the cross-section of the fixed blade 60), when viewed in a plane perpendicular to a radial extension axis of the respective fixed blade, that extends along a camber line between the leading edge and the trailing edge, with this camber line being inscribed in a circle (Sato, FIG. 7A, the cross-section of the fixed blade 60), with a first angle (Sato, FIG. 7A, this angle may be derived from theta 2) being formed between a tangent to the circle at the leading edge and the camber at the leading edge and a second angle (Sato, FIG. 7A, this angle may be derived from theta 2 and theta 1) formed between the tangent to the circle at the leading edge and the camber line at the trailing edge.
The combination of Yokote and Sato fails to teach the first angle ranging between 30 and 100 and the second angle ranging between 79 degrees and 128 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the first angle ranging between 30 and 100 and the second angle ranging between 79 degrees and 128 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (similar angles are shown in FIG. 7A of Sato), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the angles are result effective variables because they affect the character of the air flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first angle ranging between 30 and 100 and the second angle ranging between 79 degrees and 128 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches that at least one fixed blade of the at least one air flow guide member includes a first portion (Sato, FIG. 4, the top portion of the static blade 60), a second portion (Sato, FIG. 4, the middle portion of the static blade 60) and a third portion (Sato, FIG. 4, the bottom portion of the static blade 60) aligned in this order along the radial extension axis of the at least one fixed blade toward the at least one wall of the at least one housing.
The combination of Yokote and Sato fails to teach a ratio between the first angle and the second angle measured in the first portion ranging between 0.03 and 0.07, the ratio between the first angle and the second angle measured in the second portion ranging between 0.05 and 0.12 and the ratio between the first angle and the second angle measured in the third portion ranging between 0.02 and 0.07.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the ratio between the various angles along the static blade 60 between 0.05 and 0.12 and between 0.02 and 0.07, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (FIGS. 4 and 7 of Sato show the static blades 60 having different tangent angles along its their length, meaning there are different ratios of those angles), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the angle sof the blades is a result effective variable because it affects the character of the air flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ratio between the various angles along the static blade 60 between 0.05 and 0.12 and between 0.02 and 0.07, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches at least one movement component (Yokote, FIG. 1A, shaft 210), wherein the at least one radial propeller is capable of being rotated by the at least one movement component, the at least one housing including at least one support (Yokote, FIG. 1A, the structure of motor 200) capable of accommodating the at least one movement component for moving the at least one radial propeller, and wherein the at least one air guide member is interposed between the at least one support capable of accommodating the at least one movement component and the at least one wall of the at least one housing (Sato, FIG. 3, the static blades 60 extend between a central structure and and outer wall).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara teaches that the at least one air flow guide member includes a plurality of fixed blades (Sato, FIG. 3, the blades of the static blades 60) and wherein at least one fixed blade of the at least one air flow guide member includes at least one inner end rigidly connected to the at least one support capable of accommodating the at least one movement component (Sato, FIG. 3, the inner ends of the static blades 60 are connected to a central structure) and at least one outer end rigidly connected to the at least one wall of the at least one housing (Sato, FIG. 3, the outer ends of the static blades 60 are connected to an outer wall structure).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokote, Sato, and Hara as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-11 above, and further in view of Dai (CN 105782076 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yokote, Sato, and Hara fails to teach that an inner radius of the at least one radial propeller, measured between the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller and the inner edge of one of the movable blades of the at least one radial propeller in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller, ranges between 36 mm and 54 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the distance between the shaft center 112b of Yokote and the innermost edges of the rotor blades 111 between 36 mm and 54 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Dai, FIG. 5, inner diameter D3 is just smaller than outer diameter D2, which may be between 250 and 276 mm), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that inner diameter is a result effective variable because it affects the character of the airflow and the maximum volumetric flow rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the distance between the shaft center 112b of Yokote and the innermost edges of the rotor blades 111 between 36 mm and 54 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokote, Sato, and Hara as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-11 above, and further in view of Yonezu et al. (US 20200156433 A1; hereinafter Yonezu) and Hara.
Regarding claim 12, Yokote teaches a ventilation, heating and/or air-conditioning system (FIG. 1A, the assembly that includes temperature conditioning unit 10) for a vehicle (see title), comprising a ventilation device (FIG. 1A, temperature conditioning unit 10 including at least one housing (FIG. 1A, housing 300), which includes at least one wall (FIG. 1A, the wall of the housing 300) defining an inner volume (FIG. 1A, the volume within the housing 300), in which at least one radial propeller (FIG. 1A, centrifugal blower 100) capable of being rotated are accommodated, the at least one radial propeller being configured to generate an air flow (FIG. 1A, air flow 301) having a general direction parallel to an axis of rotation (FIG. 1A, shaft center 112b) of the at least one radial propeller between an air inlet (FIG. 1A, suction hole 122) of the at least one radial propeller and an air outlet (FIG. 1A, exhaust hole 125) opening formed in the at least one wall of the at least one housing of the ventilation device, with at least part of the wall of the at least one housing being configured to straighten the air flow exiting the at least one radial propeller (FIG. 1A, the walls of the housing 300 direct the air in a straight direction).
Yokote fails to teach at least one air flow guide member, wherein the at least one airflow guide member is configured to direct the air flow toward the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller, and at least one heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between the air flow channeled by the ventilation device and a coolant.
However, Sato teaches at least one air flow guide member (FIG. 3, static blades 60), wherein the at least one airflow guide member is configured to direct the air flow toward the axis of rotation of the at least one radial propeller (FIG. 3, the static blades 60 direct air toward the center of the shaft).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yokote by inserting static blades downstream of the blower, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yokote with these aforementioned teachings of Sato with the motivation of encouraging straight airflow by employing baffles that counteract the swirl effect caused by the radial fan.
Sato fails to teach at least one heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between the air flow channeled by the ventilation device and a coolant.
However, Yonezu teaches at least one heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between the air flow channeled by the ventilation device and a coolant (FIG. 1, evaporator 16).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yokote by replacing the batteries 3Yonezu03 of Yokote with evaporators, as taught by Yonezu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yokote with these aforementioned teachings of since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the evaporator 16 of Yonezu for the batteries 303 of Yokote. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Yonezu fails to teach that an air filter closes the air outlet opening and the air flow is distributed over substantially an entire surface of the air filter.
However, Hara teaches that an air filter (FIG. 1, filter 14) closes the air outlet opening and the air flow is distributed over substantially an entire surface of the air filter (FIG. 1).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yokote by inserting a filter downstream of the blower, as taught by Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yokote with these aforementioned teachings of Hara with the motivation of ensuring the air is as clean as possible by using a redundant number of filters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights