DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-14 & 16-18 are pending in the application. Claims 6 & 12 are withdrawn. Claims 2, 4 & 15 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13-14 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “a one-piece housing with an interior space and with a plurality of flow channels molded on the housing” and “the housing is produced by additive manufacturing”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describes how the plurality of flow channels can be “molded on” the housing, when the housing is also produced via additive manufacturing.
The plurality of flow channels 12/13 are shown as volumes without any physical attributes in instant application Figures 28/29. As such, the original disclosure has not provided sufficient description on how to mold non-physical structure –the plurality of flow channels-- to a physical structure –the housing.
Additionally, when referencing the instant application figures, including Figures 26-29 which represent the elected species, the housing 1 defines the plurality of flow channels 12/13. Since the housing 1 is produced via additive manufacturing, one of ordinary skill in the art, when referencing Figures 26-29, would conclude the housing 1 forms the walls which define the plurality of flow channels 12/13. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the plurality of flow channels 12/13 are not molded on the housing, but the housing forms the plurality of flow channels via additive manufacturing. Therefore, the original disclosure does not have sufficient written description for how the plurality of flow channels may be “molded on the housing”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13-14 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “a one-piece housing with an interior space and with a plurality of flow channels molded on the housing”, in Lines 2-3, in combination with the limitation “the housing is produced by additive manufacturing”, in Line 20, is indefinite.
The plurality of flow channels 12/13 are shown as volumes without any physical attributes in instant application Figures 28/29. As such, it is not clear how non-physical structure –the plurality of flow channels—may be molded to a physical structure –the housing.
When referencing the instant application figures, including Figures 26-29 which represent the elected species, the housing 1 defines the plurality of flow channels 12/13. Since the housing 1 is produced via additive manufacturing, one of ordinary skill in the art, when referencing Figures 26-29, would conclude the housing 1 forms the walls which define the plurality of flow channels 12/13. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the plurality of flow channels 12/13 are not molded on the housing, but the housing forms the plurality of flow channels via additive manufacturing. Therefore, it is not clear how the plurality of flow channels may be “molded on the housing”, since the housing defines the plurality of flow channels.
Additionally, since instant application Figures 28/29 show the housing 1 defining the flow channels 12/13, but the claim defines the plurality of flow channels as being separate from the housing, the boundaries of the housing are not clear, i.e., it is not clear where the housing ends and the flow channels begin.
The limitation “at least one is an inflow channel and at least one is an outflow channel”, in Lines 3-4, is indefinite. It is not clear which structure is being referred to with the use of each instance of the phrase “at least one”, since multiple structures have been defined prior to the use of the phrases. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “at least one of the plurality of flow channels is an inflow channel and at least one of the plurality of flow channels is an outflow channel”.
The limitation “the chamber has inner surfaces which are adapted to an outer shape of the impeller and of which 50% or more are formed by the housing”, in Lines 13-14, is indefinite. It is not clear which structure is being referred to in the phrase “of which 50% or more are formed by the housing”, since multiple structures were defined prior to the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the chamber has inner surfaces which are adapted to an outer shape of the impeller and of which 50% or more of the inner surfaces are formed by the housing.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 14 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davoine (U.S. PGPub 2021/0001068), in view of Wildhaber (CH717838A2 – see previously attached translation).
As to Claim 1, Davoine teaches a turbomachine (Figure 1), comprising
a one-piece (this limitation may be interpreted two ways, in view of Davoine; 1) Davoine teaches housing 1 is made of one piece, which may be either first half-casing 1a or second half-casing 1b; or 2) the Davoine housing 1 is made of multiple components 1a/1b, which broadly form one-piece 1, when combined) housing (at least 1/23/29) with an interior space (the volume/space within the perimeter walls of 1a/1b, as shown in Figures 3-8) and with a plurality of flow channels (16) on the housing (at least 1/23/29), of which at least one is an inflow channel (16) and at least one is an outflow channel (15/29);
an impeller (24) which is arranged in (as shown in Figure 7) a chamber (27) formed by (as shown in Figure 8) the interior space (the volume/space within the perimeter walls of 1a/1b, as shown in Figures 3-8) of the housing (at least 1/23/29); and
a drive motor (the motor in blower 2; Paragraph 0090) arranged in (as shown in Figure 8) the interior space (the volume/space within the perimeter walls of 1a/1b, as shown in Figures 3-8) for driving (Paragraph 0094) the impeller (24) in a rotational movement about (Paragraph 0094) a rotational axis (see Figures 3/8 below), in order to convey (Paragraph 0095) a fluid (gas; Paragraph 0095) out of (Paragraph 0098) the housing (at least 1/23/29) through (Paragraph 0099) the at least one outflow channel (15/29);
wherein the chamber (27) has inner surfaces (see Figure 8 below) which are adapted to an outer shape (the perimeter of the cross-section of the impeller 24 shown in Figure 8) of the impeller (24) and of which 50% or more are formed by (as shown in Figure 8 below, each of the inner surfaces are formed by housing portion 23, resulting in 100% of the inner surfaces being formed by housing 1/23/29) the housing (at least 1/23/29),
wherein the at least one outflow channel (15/29) extends away from (as shown in Figure 8, where the portion 29 of outflow channel 15/29 extends to the left –radial—in the longitudinal direction, and up and down –tangential—in the transverse direction) the impeller (24) in a tangential and/or radial direction (to the left, as viewed in Figure 8) with regard to the rotational axis (see Figures 3/8 below)
wherein the at least one inflow channel (16) has a portion (the portion of 16 leading down from 18 in Figure 3) that extends perpendicular to (as shown in Figure 3) the rotational axis (see Figures 3/8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Davoine Figure 3, Modified by Examiner
PNG
media_image2.png
547
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Davoine Figure 7, Modified by Examiner
PNG
media_image3.png
593
821
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Davoine Figure 8, Modified by Examiner
Davoine does not teach the plurality of flow channels are molded on the housing, or the housing is produced by additive manufacturing.
Molding the plurality of flow channels on the housing is considered a product-by-process, and "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Since Davoine already meets the structural limitations of the claim, molding the plurality of flow channels on the housing is not considered patentable. See MPEP 2113.
Wildhaber describes a similar volute pump, and teaches the housing (121) is produced by additive manufacturing (Paragraph 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the housing, as taught by Davoine, via additive manufacturing, as taught by Wildhaber, since this “allows the blower housing to be manufactured quickly, easily and therefore efficiently (Paragraph 0037).”
As to Claim 3, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the impeller (Davoine 24) is configured to deflect a fluid flow (as indicated by the arrows shown in Davoine Figure 4) from (via Davoine 26, as shown in Davoine Figure 8) an axial direction (up and down, as viewed in Davoine Figure 8) into (via Davoine 28, as shown in Davoine Figure 8) the radial direction (left and right, as viewed in Davoine Figure 8) with regard to the rotational axis (see Figures 3/8 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
As to Claim 5, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the at least one outflow channel (Davoine 15/29) opens outward from (as shown in Davoine Figure 8) the housing (Davoine 1, as modified above) in the tangential and/or radial direction (to the left, as viewed in Davoine Figure 8) with regard to the rotational axis (see Figures 3/8 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
As to Claim 7, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the at least one inflow channel (Davoine 16) extends toward (as shown in Davoine Figure 4; Davoine Paragraph 0083) the impeller (Davoine 24) in such a way that the fluid (Davoine gas; Davoine Paragraph 0095) is sucked in through (via Davoine 17) the at least one inflow channel (Davoine 16) causing the fluid (Davoine gas; Davoine Paragraph 0095) to impinge on (one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the Davoine gas broadly impinges on the Davoine impeller once the Davoine gas moves through Davoine 26 in Davoine Figure 8) a central portion (the portion of Davoine impeller 24 immediately adjacent to Davoine shaft 25, as viewed in Davoine Figure 8) of the impeller (Davoine 24) in an axial direction (up and down, as viewed in Davoine Figure 8) with regard to the rotational axis (see Figures 3/8 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
As to Claim 8, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 7, and continues to teach the inflow channel (Davoine 16) opens outward from (as shown in Davoine Figure 3) the housing (Davoine 1, as modified above) in the tangential and/or radial direction (left and right, as viewed in Davoine Figure 3) with regard to the rotational axis (see Figures 3/8 in the Claim 1 rejection above)
As to Claim 9, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the housing (Davoine 1, as modified above) has a cuboid shape (as shown in Davoine Figures 1/2). The term “cuboid shape” is being interpreted broadly, since none of the instant application figures show a true cuboid shape, due to the notches and fillets in the disclosed housing.
As to Claim 11, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the drive motor (the Davoine motor in Davoine blower 2; Davoine Paragraph 0090) is attached to a cover plate (see Davoine Figure 7 in the Claim 1 rejection above) which is configured to close (as shown in Figure 7) the interior space (Davoine 22 and the portion of the interior space shown in Davoine Figure 8 in the Claim 1 rejection above) toward (the cover plate shown in Davoine Figure 7 is broadly facing the outside of the housing) an outside (the volume outside of the Davoine housing 1 shown in Davoine Figures 7/8).
As to Claim 14, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a particle filter (the HEPA filter described in Davoine Paragraph 0085) arranged in a region of the at least one flow channel (Davoine 29/16). Davoine Paragraph 0024 describes using the HEPA filter anywhere within the fluid stream. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize anywhere within the fluid stream would include a region of the at least one flow channel.
As to Claim 16, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the turbomachine (Davoine Figure 1) in its entirety (where Davoine housing 1, as modified above has a broad cuboid shape) has a cuboid shape (as shown in Davoine Figures 1/2). The term “cuboid shape” is being interpreted broadly, since none of the instant application figures show a true cuboid shape, due to the notches and fillets in the disclosed housing.
As to Claim 17, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 14, and continues to teach the particle filter (the HEPA filter described in Davoine Paragraph 0085) is a HEPA filter (Davoine Paragraph 0085).
As to Claim 18, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 7 & 8, and continues to teach the at least one outflow channel (Davoine 15/29) and the at least one inflow channel (Davoine 16) open outward from the housing (Davoine 1) in such a way, that the at least one outflow channel (Davoine 15/29) and the at least one inflow channel (Davoine 16) are arranged parallel to each other (as shown in Davoine Figure 3) and at a same height (Davoine 15 and Davoine 16 are shown the same distance from the rotational axis in Figure 3, since Davoine 15 and Davoine 16 are both shown extending slightly to the left from the right side of Davoine housing 1, as viewed in Davoine Figure 3; see Figure 3 in the Claim 1 rejection above for clarification) with regard to the rotational axis (see Figures 3/8 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davoine, in view of Wildhaber, further in view of Lin (U.S. PGPub 2018/0058467), further in view of Ding (CN107355392A – see attached translation), as evidenced by pmwdynamics.com (see Advantages of External Rotor Motors – PMW pdf from pmwdynamics.com/news/advantages-of-external-rotor-motors/).
As to Claim 10, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the impeller is made via injection molding (Davoine Paragraph 0053). However, Davoine, as modified, is silent on the impeller being injection molded directly onto the rotor, so does not explicitly teach the runner is produced by means of injection molding and is molded directly onto the rotor.
Davoine, as modified, is also silent on the type of drive motor, so does not explicitly teach the drive motor is an external rotor motor with a stator and with a rotor which surrounds the stator.
Lin describes an impeller/runner/rotor combination for a similar blower, and teaches the impeller (110) is produced by means of injection molding (Paragraphs 0006/0021) and is molded directly onto (Paragraphs 0006/0021) the rotor (111).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the impeller/runner/rotor combination, as taught by Lin, in place of the impeller/runner/rotor combination, as taught by Davoine, as modified, preventing the thickness of the blades from being limited by other processes (Paragraph 0021).”
Ding describes a rotor/stator combination for a similar blower, and teaches the drive motor (3) is an external rotor motor (3; as shown in Figure 1) with a stator (31) and with a rotor (32) which surrounds (as shown in Figure 1) the stator (31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the stator, as taught by Ding, within the rotor, as taught by Davoine, as modified. The website pmwdynamics.com teaches outer rotor motors enhance cooling, and increase efficiency.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davoine, in view of Wildhaber, further in view of Tarver (GB2575476A).
As to Claim 13, Davoine, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the impeller blades are curved (Davoine Paragraph 0052). However, Davoine, as modified, is silent on the direction of the curvature, so does not explicitly teach the impeller comprises backward curved blades.
Tarver describes an impeller for a similar blower, and teaches the impeller (201) comprises backward curved (as shown in Figures 5a/5b) blades (206). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize impeller 201 would need to rotate counterclockwise –as viewed in Figures 5a/5b-- in order to exhaust fluid out the outlet 215. This results in the blades 206 being curved backward –opposite the rotational direction-- from the center of the impeller to the outer circumferential perimeter of the impeller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the impeller, as taught by Tarver, in place of the impeller, as taught by Davoine, as modified, to “reduce the likelihood of inlet stall occurring under high flow conditions (Page 10, Lines 5-7).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claim 1, Applicant argues Davoine, as modified, does not teach 1) a one-piece housing, 2) the housing with an interior space in which both the drive motor and the impeller are arranged, or 3) the impeller arranged in a chamber formed by the interior space, the chamber having inner surfaces which are adapted to an outer shape of the impeller and of which at least 50% are formed by the housing. Examiner disagrees.
Regarding the one-piece housing, Applicant argues Davoine teaches the use of two parts –Elements 1a/1b. Although this may be true, when these two parts are assembled together, the two parts form a one-piece housing. It appears Applicant is using an unsupported narrow definition of the term “one-piece”, where Applicant is arguing the term “one-piece” means monolithic. However, the term “one-piece” does not mean monolithic, and it does not appear Applicant has support for such a definition. As described in the Claim 1 rejection above, the term “one-piece” may be broadly interpreted at least two ways, in view of Davoine.
First, Davoine teaches housing 1 is made of one piece, which may be either first half-casing 1a or second half-casing 1b. Note Applicant does not claim the housing is made of only one piece, which it does not appear the original disclosure has support for.
Second, Davoine housing 1 is made of multiple components 1a/1b, which broadly form one-piece 1, when combined.
As such, Davoine clearly teaches housing 1 is “a one-piece housing”.
Regarding the housing with an interior space in which both the drive motor and the impeller are arranged. As described in the rejection above, the housing is made of multiple components to form “one-piece” when assembled. Once assembled, the housing forms an interior space which extends the entirety of the inside of both of components Davoine 1a/1b. Since Davoine Figures 3-8 show each of the drive motor and the impeller within Davoine 1a/1b, each of the drive motor and the impeller are within the interior space.
Regarding the impeller arranged in a chamber formed by the interior space, the chamber having inner surfaces which are adapted to an outer shape of the impeller and of which at least 50% are formed by the housing. As described in the rejection above, the interior space has sub-space 27 forming the chamber. Since chamber 27 is with the interior space, as shown in Davoine Figures 3-8, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the chamber is broadly formed by the interior space. The chamber has the two inner surfaces, shown in Davoine Figure 8 in the Claim 1 rejection above, which are broadly adapted to the shape of the impeller, as shown in Davoine Figure 8. Since the two surfaces in Davoine Figure 8 are the only surfaces defined as the “inner surfaces”, 100% of the inner surfaces are formed by the housing, where the housing includes Element 23.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claim 18, Applicant argues Davoine, as modified, does not teach the outflow channel and the inflow channel opening outward from the housing at the same height with respect to the rotational axis. Applicant claims to have provided an annotated figure demonstrating why Davoine does not teach this feature. However, the annotated figure provided by Applicant was not legible, so it is not clear how to respond to Applicant’s arguments. However, a figure has been provided in the Claim 1 rejection above to clarify the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783