DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 15-18, 21 and 23-25 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 5-8, 16-18, 21 and 23-25 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitation of original claim 4 and further specify “the cutwater is a monolithic cam, wherein the cutwater is capable of moving and rotatable about an axis”. Applicant asserts Yuan fails to teach the above limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since at least a portion of the cutwater 4 is a monolithic cam (portion 1 is a monolithic cam) which is capable of moving and rotatable about an axis(rotational axis of 1 which is coaxial with motor shaft 5), at least a portion of the cutwater is a monolithic cam, which meets the claimed limitation. Furthermore, it appears Applicant’s disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description of the cutwater being “a monolithic cam”, which is considered new matter.
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 and 15 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.
Claims 1-3 and 15 recite the limitation, “wherein the cutwater is a monolithic cam”. The specification, however, is silent regarding the cutwater being a monolithic cam or a non-monolithic cam, and does not explicitly state the cam is constructed of one-piece. Therefore, the specification does not sufficiently support the limitation. Furthermore, while the drawings may be relied upon for what they fairly teach, it is not apparent from the drawings the cam is limited to monolithic construction. Therefore, the above amended limitations add new matter and fail to comply with the written description requirement, because there is no support in the disclosure as originally filed for the amended limitations. Claims 2-3 and 15 also contain new matter by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (CN 108240354), hereinafter: “Yuan”. The English translation of Yuan provided is referenced hereinafter.
In Regard to Claim 1
Yuan teaches:
An apparatus(centrifugal fan of Fig 6-7), comprising:
an impeller(8) capable of rotating(8 is at least structurally capable of rotating);
a housing(91,92,93) defining an internal volume(9) and an exhaust, the impeller located within the internal volume(Fig 5-7); and
a cutwater(4) to divide a flow of air within the internal volume between the exhaust(opening adjacent 4 at top of Fig 5-6) and a region of the internal volume between the cutwater and the impeller(spiral portion of volute; Fig 5-7), wherein the cutwater is a monolithic cam(at least portion 1 of cutwater 4 is a monolithic cam; P[0036], Fig 2-4), wherein the cutwater is capable of moving and rotatable about an axis(rotational axis of 1 which is coaxial with motor shaft 5; P[0037], P[0038]), wherein a minimum distance between the cutwater and the impeller is a first distance when the cutwater is in a first cutwater placement(Fig 9 depicts a minimum/first distance between the cutwater and the impeller in a first cutwater placement) and a second distance when the cutwater is in a second cutwater placement(Fig 8 depicts a second distance between the cutwater and the impeller), and wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance(as is visually apparent from Fig 8-9, the first distance is greater than the second distance; P[0037], P[0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0258438), hereinafter: “Johnson”.
In Regard to Claim 2
Yuan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising an actuator(5) that causes the cutwater to move between the first cutwater placement and the second cutwater placement(P[0036]-P[0038])
Yuan fails to teach:
the actuator comprising one or more shape memory alloy wires, wherein heating or cooling of the one or more shape memory alloy wires causes the cutwater to move between the first cutwater placement and the second cutwater placement.
Johnson teaches:
A blower assembly(310) having a moveable wall(338) and a motion device(322) configured to move the moveable wall between a first position and a second position(P[0076]), wherein the motion device includes a shape memory alloy wire(313; P[0077]), where heating or cooling the shape memory alloy wire cause the moveable wall to move between a first position and a second position(heating occurs when exposed to electric current, cooling occurs when not exposed to electric current; P[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to replace the actuator of Yuan with the actuator of Johnson in an effort to increase efficiency while reducing the size of the apparatus(P[0136]).
Additionally, it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Yuan teaches a base actuator for moving the cutwater between a first position and a second position. Johnson teaches an actuator for moving a wall between a first position and a second position. Both actuators perform the function of moving a component of an fan from a first position to a second position. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the actuator of Yuan with the shape memory alloy wire of Johnson to achieve predictable results because both references deal with moving a component of an fan from a first position to a second position that function in the same manner in the environment of a fan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Yuan by replacing the actuator with a shape memory alloy wire because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Wang et al. (CN 114198321), hereinafter: “Wang”. The English translation of Wang provided is referenced hereinafter.
In Regard to Claim 3
Yuan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising an actuator(5) that causes the cutwater to move between the first cutwater placement and the second cutwater placement(P[0036]-P[0038])
Yuan fails to teach:
a spring attached to the cutwater, wherein a spring force of the spring is to hold the cutwater in the first cutwater placement when the spring force is greater than aerodynamic forces pushing against the cutwater, and wherein the cutwater is to move toward the second cutwater placement when the aerodynamic forces pushing against the cutwater are greater than the spring force holding the cutwater in the first cutwater placement
Wang teaches:
A centrifugal fan(Fig 1) having a moveable cutwater(tongue 8,9) including a spring(5) attached to the cutwater(at 10), wherein a spring force of the spring is to hold the cutwater in the first cutwater placement when the spring force is greater than aerodynamic forces pushing against the cutwater(P[0025,P[0030]-P[0032]), and wherein the cutwater is to move toward the second cutwater placement when the aerodynamic forces pushing against the cutwater are greater than the spring force holding the cutwater in the first cutwater placement(P[0025,P[0030]-P[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan to incorporate the teachings of Wang to replace the movable cutwater of Yuan with the moveable cutwater of Wang in an effort to increase efficiency while reducing noise(P[0015]-P[0018], P[0031]-P[0032]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Sen et al. (US 20220322569), hereinafter: “Sen”.
In Regard to Claim 15
Yuan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the housing is an air mover housing(“centrifugal fan”; P[0037])
Yuan fails to teach:
a printed circuit board; one or more processing units attached to the printed circuit board; a heat transfer device located on the one or more processing units; and a system housing enclosing the one or more processing units, the heat transfer device, the air mover housing and the printed circuit board.
Sen teaches:
An apparatus(100) comprising an air mover(102,104) and a printed circuit board(122; Fig 1, 2A-2D; P[0024]-P[0025]); one or more processing units attached to the printed circuit board(CPU, GPU, etc..P[0024]); a heat transfer device located on the one or more processing units(124,126; P[0024]); and a system housing(101) enclosing the one or more processing units, the heat transfer device, the air mover housing and the printed circuit board(P[0011], P[0022]-P[0025]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Yuan teaches all elements except a printed circuit board; one or more processing units attached to the printed circuit board; a heat transfer device located on the one or more processing units; and a system housing enclosing the one or more processing units, the heat transfer device, the air mover housing and the printed circuit board. Sen teaches a printed circuit board; one or more processing units attached to the printed circuit board; a heat transfer device located on the one or more processing units; and a system housing enclosing the one or more processing units, the heat transfer device, the air mover housing and the printed circuit board, which has the function of cooling an electronic device. When combined with Yuan by utilizing the centrifugal fan of Yuan in the apparatus of Sen, it maintains its function of moving air to cool the electronic device. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to centrifugal fans that function in the same manner in the environment of electronic device cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the centrifugal fan of Yuan by utilizing it in the apparatus of Sen because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights