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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “having a gas channel” in line 7. This should read “wherein a gas channel”.
Claim 14 recites “and having a first blower wheel and having a second blower wheel” in lines 9-10. This should be amended to read “wherein the blower apparatus comprises a first blower wheel and a second blower wheel”.
Claim 15 recites “the two blower wheels” in line 2 and lines 4-5. This should read “the first and the second blower wheel”. This is stated throughout the claims and should be corrected. For example, claims 17, 25, 27.
Claim 23, line 5 reads “the tight connection”. This should read “a tight connection”.
Claim 25 recites “the two housings parts”. This should read “the first and the second housing parts”.
Claim 26 recites “the at least blower wheel”. This should read “at least one of the first and the second blower wheels”.
Claim 29, “the spinner” should read “wherein the spinner”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14-33 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.
Claim 14 recites “the first or the second blower wheel are arranged in sections in the first housing part and are arranged in sections in the second housing part”. The metes and bounds of this claim language are unclear. It is unclear if the wheels are located in sections of the first and second housing parts or if the wheels are sections themselves. The examiner has interpreted this as the wheels are located in portions of the first housing part and the second housing part. Similarly, the last two lines of the claim reads “the first blower wheel lies against the second blower wheel in sections”. It is unclear what is meant by this. The examiner has interpreted this to mean the first blower wheel lies against the second blower wheel.
Claims 15-33 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 14.
Claim 17 recites “and are connected to one another”. It is unclear what is connected to one another. The examiner has interpreted this as the two blower wheels connected to one another.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the drive shaft" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the inlet opening (151) of the second blower wheel (150) has an inlet diameter (ED2) which is the same size as a minimum inlet diameter (EDG) of the gas inlet (123) of the second housing part (132; 232; 432)” 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-19, 21-22 and 24-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant admitted prior art (figures 1 and 2 of applicant’s disclosure which depict a known two stage blower apparatus from Micronel AG (CH), hereinafter Micronel, as per page 11 lines 22-24 of applicant’s disclosure) in view of Stoll (EP 1201928 A2), hereinafter Stoll. The examiner notes the translation of Stoll is relied upon in the rejection set forth below.
Regarding claim 14, Micronel discloses: A two-stage blower apparatus (figures 1-2; figure 2 provided below) for a ventilator for providing a respiratory gas for a patient comprising a multi-part blower housing (23, 25, 29) having a first housing part (23) and a second housing part (25, 29), wherein a gas inlet (24) for the respiratory gas is provided on the first housing part (23) and a gas outlet (26) for the respiratory gas is provided on the second housing part (25, 29), having a gas channel (21a) for the respiratory gas is formed in the first housing part (23; see figure 2) and in the second housing part (25, 29) and having a first blower wheel (27) and having a second blower wheel (28) wherein the first blower wheel (27) or the second blower wheel are arranged in sections in the first housing part (23) and are arranged in sections in the second housing part (25, 29) (see figure 2)
Micronel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first blower wheel lies against the second blower wheel in sections.
Stoll teaches it is known for a first blower wheel (11) to lie against a second blower wheel (12) in sections (via 51-52; see figures 1-2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have modified Micronel such that the first blower wheel 27 lies against second blower wheel 28 without a spacer as taught by Stoll for the benefit of obtaining a one-piece disk which achieves optical tightness which prevents backflow (page 2, second to last paragraph). The modification results in the second blower wheel (28) is arranged in sections in the first housing part (23) and are arranged in sections in the second housing part (25, 29). The connection between the two wheels 27 and 28 would be located where spacer 30 is located as taught by Stoll, which is between first and second housing (see figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein a drive device (22+ housing surrounding 22, 29a) is provided for driving the two blower wheels (27, 28; see figure 2), wherein the drive device (22, 29a) is arranged adjacent to the second housing part (29, 25; see figure 2) and has a drive shaft (29a) and at least one of the two blower wheels (27, 28) is arranged on the drive shaft (29a; see figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein the two blower wheels (27, 28) each have at least one flow channel (145; 155) for the respiratory gas with a plurality of blower lamellae (shown below in annotated figure) which form the gas channel (21a) in sections, wherein the first blower wheel (27) and the second blower wheel (28) are each constructed in one piece (as modified by Stoll 27 and 28 are constructed as one piece: page 2, second to last paragraph).
PNG
media_image2.png
606
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein the first or the second housing part (23, 29, 25) has a housing part opening (as shown below there is an opening in 29 and 25) and at least one of the two blower wheels (28) extends through the housing part opening (see annotated figure 2 below) and are connected to one another (as modified by Stoll 27 and 28 are connected; see rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
606
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein the first blower wheel (27) has an inlet opening (opening at the left end of 27 as shown in figure 27) for the respiratory gas.
Regarding claim 19, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 18 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein the first blower wheel (27) has a spinner (27a) which is arranged in the inlet opening (see figure 2) of the first blower wheel (27).
Regarding claim 21, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein the second blower wheel (28) has an inlet opening (left end of 28) for the respiratory gas.
Regarding claim 22, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein diffusor lamellae (see annotated figure 2) are provided, which are arranged on the second housing part (29, 25) and are arranged adjacent to the first blower wheel (27; see figure 2) and/or a diffusor with diffusor lamellae is provided, which is arranged separably on the first or the second housing part (this is an alternative limitation and thus is not required by the instant claim language).
PNG
media_image4.png
606
725
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein the gas channel (21a) has an outlet section (26) which is arranged completely on the second housing part (29, 25; see figure 2).
Regarding claim 25, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel is silent as to how the housing and the blower wheels are made. However, the recitation that “at least one of the two housing parts is produced with the aid of at least one additive manufacturing method and/or at least one of the two blower wheels is produced with the aid of an additive manufacturing method” is considered to be a product by process limitation. In product-by-process claims, "once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference." MPEP 2113. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even 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." In this instance, the product taught by Micronel is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claims. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the "patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 26, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 15 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein the at least one blower wheel (27, 28) is on the drive shaft (29a; see figure 2) but Micronel is silent as to how the blower wheels are made with the drive shaft. However, the recitation that the blower wheels are shrunk on to the drive shaft is considered to be a product by process limitation. In product-by-process claims, "once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference." MPEP 2113. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even 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." In this instance, the product taught by Micronel is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claims. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the "patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 27, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. Micronel as modified further discloses: wherein the two blower wheels (27, 28) form a one-piece blower wheel unit (as modified by Stoll 27 and 28 are constructed as one piece: page 2, second to last paragraph)
Regarding claim 28, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 18 above. Micronel further discloses wherein the inlet opening (left opening of 27) of the first blower wheel (27) has an inlet diameter (ED1: see below) which is the same size as a minimum inlet diameter (EDG: see below) of the gas inlet (24) of the first housing part (23).
PNG
media_image5.png
606
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 19 above. Micronel further discloses wherein the spinner (27a) has a spinner opening (where 29a is placed).
Regarding claim 30, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 29 above. Micronel further discloses wherein a closure element (29a) is provided for closing the spinner opening (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 31, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 21 above. Micronel as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the inlet opening of the second blower wheel (opening at left side of 28) has an inlet diameter which is the same size as a minimum inlet diameter of the gas inlet of the second housing part (opening in 29). The drawings show the inlet opening of the second housing part being slightly larger (see figure 2).
However, Micronel discloses wherein the inlet opening (left opening of 27) of the first blower wheel (27) has an inlet diameter (ED1: see below) which is the same size as a minimum inlet diameter (EDG: see below) of the gas inlet (24) of the first housing part (23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to replicate this for the second housing such that the inlet opening of the second blower wheel (opening at left side of 28) has an inlet diameter which is the same size as a minimum inlet diameter of the gas inlet of the second housing part (opening in 29) as taught by Micronel for the purposes of achieving the appropriate gas flow through the two stage system.
PNG
media_image5.png
606
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 24 above. Micronel as modified further discloses: wherein the gas outlet (26) for the respiratory gas is arranged at an angle of between 60° and 120° relative to the gas inlet (gas inlet on 29 closest to the gas inlet at 28) for the respiratory gas on the second housing part (29, 25) (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 33, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 31 above. Micronel as modified further discloses: wherein the gas outlet (26) for the respiratory gas is arranged at an angle of 90 relative to the gas inlet (gas inlet on 29 closest to the gas inlet at 28) for the respiratory gas on the second housing part (29, 25) (see figures 1-2).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant admitted prior art (figures 1 and 2 of applicant’s disclosure which depict a known two stage blower apparatus from Micronel AG (CH), hereinafter Micronel, as per page 11 lines 22-24 of applicant’s disclosure) in view of Stoll (EP 1201928 A2), hereinafter Stoll (The examiner notes the translation of Stoll is relied upon in the rejection set forth below), in further view of Mercer (US 3,680,978 A), hereinafter Mercer.
Regarding claim 20, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 19 above. Micronel further discloses: wherein the drive shaft (29a) opens into/connects to the spinner (27a) of the first blower wheel (27). See figure 2. Micronel does not explicitly state wherein the drive shaft has an axial bore or a slot which opens into the spinner of the first blower wheel.
However, Mercer (abstract) teaches that it is known for a drive shaft (12) to have an axial bore (12 is hollow) or a slot which opens into a spinner (11) of a first blower wheel (10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Micronel such that drive shaft 29a is hollow and opens into the component (27a) at which it connects to as shown in figure 2 of Micronel for the benefit of allowing a cooling effect while simultaneously using less material for the drive shaft (col. 2, lines 42-54).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant admitted prior art (figures 1 and 2 of applicant’s disclosure which depict a known two stage blower apparatus from Micronel AG (CH), hereinafter Micronel, as per page 11 lines 22-24 of applicant’s disclosure) in view of Stoll (EP 1201928 A2), hereinafter Stoll (The examiner notes the translation of Stoll is relied upon in the rejection set forth below), in further view of Bendig et al. (DE 3818046 C1), hereinafter Bendig. The examiner notes the provided translation is relied upon in the rejection set forth below.
Regarding claim 23, Micronel as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above. While Micronel discloses the first and second housing parts are connected to each other via adhesive bonding (page 12, lines 2-5), Micronel does not explicitly disclose the first and second housing parts are connected to one another with a snap closure or a bayonet closure and at least on the first or on the second housing part a sealing unit is provided for the tight connection of the two housing parts.
However, Bendig teaches it is known wherein two component parts are connected to one another with a snap closure (page 4, paragraph 1) or a bayonet closure (page 4, paragraph 2) and at least on the first or on the second housing part a sealing unit (O-ring 27) is provided for the tight connection of the two housing parts (page 4, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Micronel such that the first and second housing parts are connected to one another with a snap closure or a bayonet closure and at least on the first or on the second housing part a sealing unit is provided for the tight connection of the two housing parts as taught by Bendig as Bendig teaches this type of connection is an alternative to gluing (page 4, paragraph 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Alstad et al. (US 2020/0072232 A1): Alstad teaches it is known to use additive manufacturing to manufacture housing for a fan [0014].
Woodring et al. (US 2003/0062045 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785