The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received June 10, 2025, amending Claims 1, 8, and 14.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “electric blower apparatus” in Claims 1-14, “cover element” in Claim 1, and “insulation element” in Claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolpert US 2001/0005482 (hereafter Wolpert).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Wolpert anticipates:
An electric blower apparatus (radial-flow blower 3) comprising:
a blower spiral (blower housing 6) having a first axial end wall, a second axial end wall, and a blower air outlet (near discharge tube 23);
an electric motor (motor 2) disposed on said first axial end wall ;
a fan wheel (blower impeller 5) configured to rotate in said blower spiral;
said electric motor having a drive shaft (output shaft of motor 2) connected to said fan wheel;
said second axial end wall of said blower spiral defining an intake opening (intake opening 8);
said intake opening defining an air inlet surface (annular intake surface of collar 35);
a cover element (damping bell 9) disposed in front of said air inlet surface (shown in Figure 4);
said cover element defining a cover surface (inside surface of damping panel 10, Figure 4) disposed at a spacing (z) from said air inlet surface (shown in Figure 4);
said cover surface being configured so as to be larger than said air inlet surface (shown in Figure 4);
said intake opening being connected to an air intake channel (intake window 12) configured to feed ambient air from an environment of the electric blower apparatus;
said cover element being configured as a cover plate (damping panel 10) having an encircling outer plate edge (bell wall 11);
said encircling outer plate edge and said blower spiral mutually defining an annular gap (annular gap between air-guiding wall 15 and collar 35 labeled and shown in Figures 3 and 4 below) between each other; [[and,]]
said annular gap forming said intake channel for direct access of the ambient air from the environment of the blower apparatus into said intake opening (shown in Figures 3 and 4 below); and,
said intake channel (intake window 12) formed by said annular gap (annular gap between air-guiding wall 15 and collar 35 labeled and shown in Figures 3 and 4 below) extending across at least 60% to 90% of a circumferential angle of said cover plate (annular gap extends across 360 o - “angular b” o as shown which is measured as approximately 360 o - 135 o = 225 o which is 62.5% of a circumferential angle of said cover plate as shown in Figures 3 and 4 below. Note that “a circumferential angle” is interpreted as being 360 o for this measurement, however, it can be more broadly interpreted as being defined with arbitrary features found on the cover plate allowing the circumferential angle to be arbitrarily defined).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wolpert anticipates:
2. The blower apparatus of claim 1 further comprising an insulation element (dampening plate 20) disposed between said cover plate (damping panel 10) and said intake opening (intake opening 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Wolpert anticipates:
3. The blower apparatus of claim 2, wherein said cover plate (damping panel 10) is configured as a support of (with retaining collar 21) said insulation element (dampening plate 20).
Regarding Claim 4, Wolpert anticipates:
4. The blower apparatus of claim 1, wherein said cover plate (damping panel 10) has a base (far right vertical wall of damping panel, Figure 4); and, said encircling outer plate edge (bell wall 11) is raised in relation to said base (raises toward intake opening, Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Wolpert anticipates:
5. The blower apparatus of claim 4, wherein said base (far right vertical wall of damping panel, Figure 4) is at a greater spacing (z1) from said air inlet surface (annular intake surface of collar 35) of said intake opening (intake opening 8) than said encircling outer plate edge (bell wall 11).
Regarding Claim 6, Wolpert anticipates:
6. The blower apparatus of claim 1, wherein said cover plate (damping panel 10) is curved (damping panel 10 shows an overall curvature and 2 curved portions that create a gap between dampening plate 20 and inside surface of damping panel as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Wolpert anticipates:
7. The blower apparatus of claim 6, wherein said cover plate (damping panel 10) has a concave side facing said intake opening (intake opening 8)(shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Amended Claim 8, Wolpert anticipates:
8. The blower apparatus of claim 1, wherein said drive shaft (output shaft of motor 2) defines a rotation axis (blower axis 4); and, said rotation axis is perpendicular to [[said]] a base (far right vertical wall of damping panel, Figure 4) of said cover plate (damping panel 10)(shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Amended Claim 14, Wolpert anticipates:
14. The blower apparatus of claim 1, wherein said annular gap (annular gap between air-guiding wall 15 and collar 35 shown in Figures 3 and 4 above) extends across a circumferential angle (W) of up to 360° (note: circumferential angle can be any angle less than 360° due to “up to” language)
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolpert US 2001/0005482 (hereafter Wolpert) in view of Poole et al. US 2016/0198636 (hereafter Poole et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Wolpert teaches:
9. The blower apparatus of claim 1, wherein said blower spiral (blower housing 6) is held on a back plate; and, said cover plate (damping panel 10) is inclined by an inclination angle in relation to said back plate (see discussion below).
Wolpert discloses a blower that is intended to be held by handle 24. Wolpert therefore does not disclose the mounting of the blower onto a back plate. Poole et al. discloses a backpack mounted blower where the blower is attached to a back plate. As shown in Poole et al. Figure 8A, the back plate is intentionally inclined relative to the rear-most plate on the blower spiral with the motivation to allow the backpack to stand without tipping over. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wolpert blower to allow it to mount to a back plate with an inclination angle as taught by Poole et al. with the motivation to provide a non-tipping backpack mounting option that would eliminate the need for the user to hold the entire weight of the device with one hand during operation.
Regarding Claim 10, Wolpert teaches:
10. The blower apparatus of claim 9, wherein said inclination angle lies in a range between 3° and 20° (see discussion below).
As discussed in Claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wolpert blower to allow it to mount to a back plate with an inclination angle as taught by Poole et al. That being said, Poole et al. discloses roughly a 5° inclined angle between the cited elements as shown in Figure 8A.
Regarding Claim 11, Wolpert teaches:
11. The blower apparatus of claim 9, wherein said inclination angle is 10° (see discussion below).
As discussed in Claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wolpert blower to allow it to mount to a back plate with an inclination angle as taught by Poole et al. That being said, Poole et al. discloses roughly a 5° inclined angle between the cited elements as shown in Figure 8A. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the inclination angle to prevent tipping would be dependent on the location of the center of gravity of the device and the height that the device is mounted on the plate. Therefore, using the Wolpert blower, it would be obvious that through routine experimentation, that for any inclination angle, such as the claimed 10°, a mounting height can be found that keeps the device as close to the back plate as possible, however, moves the center of gravity backward so that the backpack version of the device can be stood upright without tipping, 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).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolpert US 2001/0005482 (hereafter Wolpert) in view of obvious optimization.
Regarding Claim 12, Wolpert teaches:
12.The blower apparatus of claim 1, wherein said intake opening (intake opening 8) defines an intake opening diameter (diameter of intake opening 8 shown in Figure 4); said cover plate (damping panel 10) defines a maximum diameter (S) of said cover plate measured at a height level of said encircling outer plate edge (bell wall 11); and, said maximum diameter (S) is 1.5 to 3.5 times said intake opening diameter (see discussion below).
Wolpert discloses a cross-sectional area of the intake window 12 formed in the damping bell 9 is greater than the cross-sectional area of the intake opening 8. Wolpert discloses that the damping bell is sized to match the blower housing 6, however, he does not provide dimensions that would allow a calculation as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify either the size or shape of the blower housing/damping bell or the diameter of the intake opening to achieve a desired fan performance which is directly modified by the intake diameter or upstream restriction through the window, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to determine through routing experimentation an optimum state where the maximum diameter of the damping panel 10 is between 1.5 to 3.5 times the intake opening diameter by merely changing the shape or dimensions of either or both parts.
Regarding Claim 13, Wolpert teaches:
13. The blower apparatus of claim 1, wherein said intake opening defines an intake opening diameter (intake opening 8); said cover plate (damping panel 10) defines a maximum diameter (S) of said cover plate measured at a height level of said encircling outer plate edge (bell wall 11); and, said maximum diameter (S) is 2.6 times said intake opening diameter (see discussion below).
Wolpert discloses a cross-sectional area of the intake window 12 formed in the damping bell 9 is greater than the cross-sectional area of the intake opening 8. Wolpert discloses that the damping bell is sized to match the blower housing 6, however, he does not provide dimensions that would allow a calculation as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify either the size or shape of the blower housing/damping bell or the diameter of the intake opening to achieve a desired fan performance which is directly modified by the intake diameter or upstream restriction through the window, 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to determine through routing experimentation an optimum state where the maximum diameter of the damping panel 10 is 2.6 times the intake opening diameter by merely changing the shape or dimensions of either or both parts.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed June 10, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-14 under Wolpert US 2001/0005482 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-14 stand with modification necessitated by amendment.
As necessitated by amendment, the rejections have been modified to address the new claim limitations. To address the Applicant’s arguments, Figures 3 and 4 have been added with shading and labeling to clearly specify the prior art features that disclose the new claim limitations. Additionally, the interpretation of the new claim limitation is clearly explained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights