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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 11-13 were canceled. Claims 1-10 and 14-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks filed on 2/25/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-9, 14-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant has written description support for claim 1 and Applicant’s amendment to claim 4 overcomes the previous rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding the drawing objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection on claim 10 are however not persuasive. Claim 10 recites “a centrifugal fan comprising the downstream guide device of claim 1, wherein the downstream guide device is attached to the centrifugal fan via the axially facing surface of the centrifugal mounting body and the mounting flange”. A centrifugal fan directs the air into the radial or centrifugal direction and not in the axial direction. Therefore, a guide device downstream of the centrifugal fan must be oriented in the radial/centrifugal direction. The device taught and shown in Applicant’s disclosure is only capable of mounting to an axial fan or a diagonal fan which is also another form of an axial fan. The device shown and described in Applicant’s disclosure is not suitable for a centrifugal fan because the downstream guide device is faced in the axial direction only and not in the centrifugal direction. Applicant’s remarks also assert person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Applicant has possession of the claimed invention because the prior art, U.S. Patent No. 9,109,610 teaches this feature. While the existence of a prior art does not necessarily ascertain applicant’s possession of the claimed device, the cited reference ‘610 fails to teach a suitable downstream guide device that is located DOWNSTREAM of the centrifugal fan of ‘610.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 10 recites wherein the downstream guide device is attached to the diagonal fan or centrifugal fan via the axially facing surface of the central mounting body and the mounting flange. This feature is not shown in any of the drawings. Therefore, the abovementioned feature must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites “a diagonal fan or centrifugal fan comprising the downstream guide device of claim 1, wherein the downstream guide device is attached to the diagonal fan or centrifugal fan via the axially facing surface of the central mounting body and the mounting flange”. This limitation is not taught in the originally filed disclosure and therefore contains new matter. There is no evidence that the applicant had possession of a diagonal fan or centrifugal fan attached to the downstream guide device via the axially facing surface of the central mounting body and the mounting flange. Furthermore, the guide device shown in the drawings and recited in claim 1 is arranged axially and therefore only suitable for axial fans and not centrifugal fans as it has no structure to guide the flow in the radial direction.
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) 1-10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heli (U.S. Patent No. 11,835,062) in view of Figeureu (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0170003) and Briand (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0125287).
As per claim 1, Heli discloses a downstream guide device (3) for a fan (4-6, collectively; figure 1) arranged downstream from the fan in the direction of flow, wherein the downstream guide device has a plurality of spoilers (7; figure 1), each with a leading edge and a trailing edge (inherent features of guide vane 7; figures 1, 3), and wherein the spoilers are attached to a central mounting body (11) and extend radially outward to a circumferential ring (as shown; figure 1), wherein a mounting flange is provided on the circumferential ring and projects radially outward therefrom (mounting flange shown; figure 1), the central mounting body and the mounting flange respectively defining an axially facing surface configured for mounting to the fan (as admitted by Applicant in Remarks dated 2/25/2026).
Heli does not explicitly teach each respective spoiler having a jagged or wavy leading edge with a periodically or non-periodically repeating waveform, at least in a portion. Figeureu (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0170003) is a related prior art in that it deals with outlet guide vanes (OGV) disposed downstream of a rotating body for straightening the flow of air (paragraph [0002]) similar to Heli’s outlet guide vane. Figeureu teaches each respective spoiler having a jagged or wavy leading edge with a periodically or non-periodically repeating waveform, at least in a portion (serrated leading edge 120; paragraph [0047]). Figeureu teaches the serrated leading edge reduces noise emission by spatially dephasing the noise sources distributed along the leading edge by means of undulations (paragraph [0007]). The person of ordinary skill in the art, who is a fan designer, would acknowledge that the fan noise is universal problem in all fan applications and therefore will be motivated to incorporate means for noise reduction in a rotating fan as the teachings of Figeureu’s OGV is reasonably pertinent to Heli’s OGV. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Heli’s outlet guide vane to incorporate Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile because as Figeureu teaches, he serrated leading edge reduces noise emission by spatially dephasing the noise sources distributed along the leading edge by means of undulations (paragraph [0007]).
Heli also does not explicitly teach wherein the spoiler has airfoil profile is twisted or twisted and curved. Briand (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0125287) is a related prior art in also deals with guide vanes. Briand teaches utilizing twisted static vanes increases air flow and air distribution and improve efficiency and further reduce noise (paragraph [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Heli’s guide vane (spoiler) to incorporate a twisted profile because as Briand teaches, twisted static vanes increases air flow and air distribution and improve efficiency and further reduce noise (paragraph [0091]).
As per claim 2, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 2, Figeureu teaches wherein the waveform has an undulating pattern with wave crests and wave troughs which extends in the plane formed by the spoiler in the vicinity of the leading edge and/or the wave crests extend substantially along a tangent along the surface of the spoiler in the vicinity of the respective wave crest (as shown; figure 4). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 2.
As per claim 3, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 3, Figeureu teaches wherein the wavy leading edge of the spoilers has a plurality of identical or different wavy shapes which are each periodically repeated (as shown; figure 4). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 3.
As per claim 4, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 4, Figeureu teaches wherein the waveform along the leading edge can be described or approximated according to one of the following mathematical functions: a. a sinusoidal waveform; b. a power function of the nth order or nth degree, where n is 2 or 4, and where the power function is represented by f(x)=a-x^n and a is a functionof a radius r representing a radial position along the waveform relative to an axis of rotation of the fan (sinusoidal waveform or parabolic; claim 3). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 4.
As per claim 5, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 5, Figeureu teaches wherein the leading edge of the spoilers has a wavy or jagged edge shape over the entire course of the length of the spoilers as viewed in the radial direction (as shown; figure 4). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 5.
As per claim 6, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 6, Figeureu teaches wherein the leading edge of the spoilers has non-wavy edge profiles next to the wavy profiles, and has a plurality of identical or different wavy shapes which are each periodically repeated at least over a continuous portion (as shown; figure 7). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 6.
As per claim 7, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 7, Figeureu teaches wherein the waveform is characterized by at least one of the following design measures: A) a progression of an angle of attack has two or more inflection points over the radius ;B) a superposed variation of a periodic or non-periodic wave compared to a non-wavy continuous leading edge; C) a chord length of the spoilers changes; D) airfoil sections are lengthened in a direction of the leading edge; E) a curvature of the spoilers changes in the vicinity of the leading edge (chord length is longest at the peak and shortest at valleys; figure 2). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 7.
As per claim 8, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 8, Figeureu teaches wherein the waveform is formed on the leading edge in such a way that a wave crest is located at the end of a respective inner or outer leading edge (as shown; figure 4). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 8.
As per claim 9, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. Heli further discloses wherein the plurality of spoilers are arranged to be circumferentially spaced and project outwardly from a central position (as shown; figure 1).
As per claim 10, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. Heli further discloses wherein the downstream guide device (3) is attached to the diagonal fan (4-6) or centrifugal fan via the axially facing surface of the central mounting body and the mounting flange (as shown; figure 3; also admitted in Applicant’s Remarks dated 2/25/2026).
As per claim 14, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 14, Figeureu teaches wherein the leading edge of the spoilers has a wavy or jagged edge shape over a continuous portion of more than 20% of the length of the spoilers as viewed in the radial direction (over the entire radial length as shown; figure 4). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 14.
As per claim 15, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 15, Figeureu teaches wherein the leading edge of the spoilers has a wavy or jagged edge shape over a continuous portion of more than 50% of the length of the spoilers as viewed in the radial direction (over the entire radial length as shown; figure 4). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Figeureu’s serrated leading edge profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 15.
As per claim 16, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 1. While Heli does not explicitly teach the features of claim 16, Briand teaches wherein the plurality of spoilers extend radially, and wherein the airfoil profile is twisted in a radial direction (twisted along the length (radial direction) of static vane 7; paragraph [0090]). By the combination of claim 1 above, incorporating Briand’s twisted profile, the modified structure would have all features of claim 16.
As per claim 17, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 16. Heli further discloses wherein the plurality of spoilers extend radially from the central body to the circumferential ring (as shown; figure 1).
As per claim 18, Heli, in view of Figeureu and Briand, discloses the downstream guide device as set forth in claim 7. Heli further discloses wherein the airfoil sections are continuously extended toward the leading edge (as shown; figure 1).
Conclusion
This office action is made NON-FINAL because it includes new grounds of rejection not necessitated by the amendment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights