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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 1/08/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 4 of page 6 through paragraph 3 of page 7 of Applicant's Remarks, Applicant's arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive insofar as the amendments do overcome the previously formulated claim 1 rejection of the previous office action. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for amended claim 1 as identified below; please see the action below for details of new rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200006997 A1 (hereinafter Kim) in view of US 20130302156 A1 (Nurzynski) and non-patent literature “The power of good design for assembly” (hereinafter Knowles) as evidenced by non-patent literature “Design for assembly” (hereinafter NPLdesign).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 3b
PNG
media_image2.png
563
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 3a
PNG
media_image3.png
674
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig 4a
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses:
A rotating machine, comprising:
a housing (8 combined with 10, 71, and 100; Fig 4) comprising a first end (upstream end in Fig 4) and a second end (downstream end in Fig 4) opposite the first end,
wherein the first end defines an inlet (at 71; Fig 4) for air (abstract) to enter into the rotating machine and the second end defines an outlet (at 100; Fig 4) for the air to exit the rotating machine;
a bearing (4; Fig 3) positioned in the housing;
a shaft (2; Fig 3) rotationally supported by the bearing at least partially within the housing (Fig 3 shows this),
wherein the shaft is rotatable about a rotational axis (axis of the shaft’s rotation; Fig 3) that extends in a longitudinal direction from the first end to the second end of the housing (Fig 3 shows this);
and a fan (6; Fig 3) attached to the shaft so as to be coaxially aligned with the bearing (Fig 3 shows this),
wherein the fan includes a curved back plate (annotated Fig 3b; Fig 3 and Fig 4 clearly show it comprises a curved surface) having an upstream face (the face pointed to by the leader line of reference character 61 in Fig 4) that faces the inlet (Fig 3, Fig 4 show this) and a downstream face (annotated Fig 3b) that faces the outlet (Fig 3 show this),
and a hub (annotated Fig 3b) that defines a hole for receipt of the shaft (Fig 3 shows this),
the fan defines an airflow path (Fig 3 shows this) including:
(i) an intake (annotated Fig 3a) that receives the air from the inlet of the housing;
and (ii) an exhaust (annotated Fig 3a) that discharges the air from the intake toward the outlet of the housing (Fig 3 shows this), and wherein a portion of the airflow path between the intake and the exhaust is in a direction that is not parallel to the rotational axis (Fig 3 shows this),
wherein the inlet and the outlet of the housing are aligned with one another and are on and intersecting the rotational axis such that the rotational axis extends through the inlet and the outlet (Fig 3 shows all this).
Kim may not explicitly disclose:
The hub extends from the downstream face of the back plate toward the outlet of the housing;
wherein the fan further comprises a shroud that is integral to the fan, wherein the shroud is upstream of the bearing and downstream of the inlet, and wherein the shroud is configured to cooperate with the fan and the housing to move air from the inlet to the outlet.
However, Nurzynski, in the same field of endeavor, rotating machines comprising fans, teaches:
In Fig 6 an analogous impeller 60 comprising:
a hub which extends from the downstream face of the back plate toward the outlet of the housing (the hub with this extension is shown surrounding the shaft 62 where the impeller 60 and shaft 62 interface), and also
a shroud 88 that is integral to the fan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim to include Nurzynski’s teachings as described above, having Kim’s fan comprise Nurzynski’s fan’s hub and shroud, in order to (regarding the hub) obtain more contact surface between the fan and shaft for increased stiffness, rigidity, stability within the fan and shaft assembly and (regarding the shroud) in increase stiffness of the impeller and also prevent the blade tips from coming into contact with the impeller housing in the event that the impeller becomes mis-aligned with the impeller housing during use (para 0017). This modification would result in the limitations identified above.
Kim as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
That the shroud that is integral to the fan is formed as a single, unitary part with the fan.
It is noted that courts have established that it is not inventive to merely take parts which were formerly separated and combine them into an integrated structure, see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). However, insofar as Applicant may try to argue against this, it is noted that it is an obvious concept in the field of machine design to take parts which were formerly separated and combine them into an integrated structure in order to reduce assembly concerns. NPLdesign, for example, is evidence of this, and identifies the obvious general teaching that if a product contains fewer parts it will reduce assembly times and costs (paragraph 1). Knowles provides a general teaching that consolidating parts has an obvious/inherent benefit of plainly reducing the number of parts involved, and also reduces the amount of assembly work and reduces the possibility of mis-assembly (page 4 para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim as modified above to include Knowles’s teachings, which are also evidenced by NPLdesign, to have the shroud formed as a single, unitary part with the fan, in order to, for example, reduce the amount of assembly and the possibility of mis-assembly (Knowles page 4 para 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified above further discloses:
a heat sink (72; Fig 3) disposed within the housing so as to be longitudinally between the fan and the inlet (Fig 3 shows this);
and a rotor (3; Fig 3) disposed on the shaft so as to be longitudinally between the heat sink and the outlet (Fig 3 shows all this),
wherein the fan is configured to receive the air from the inlet in a direction that is parallel to the rotational axis (Fig 3 shows this) and, in cooperation with a non-rotation section of a chassis (17; Fig 3),
subsequently discharge the air toward the outlet in a direction that is parallel to the rotational axis (Fig 3 shows all this).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights