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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, lines 2-7, filed August 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Chapman fails to teach the transition is radially beyond the impeller blades. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2015/0176594 to Gebert. Gebert teaches a fan comprising impeller blades, a scroll housing, and a base plate, wherein a transition between the base plate and the scroll housing is disposed at a radial position beyond the impeller blades.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted May 27, 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reinforcing elements” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The generic, non-structural term “elements” is defined by the function of “reinforcing”, and is not defined by additional structure capable of performing the function. Therefore the “reinforcing elements” meet the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, page 8, lines 4-9 describe reinforcing elements 18 which are “reinforcing ribs 18” which provide dimensional stability. Accordingly, the “reinforcing elements” will be interpreted as “ribs” and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0176594 to Gebert in view of US 8,192,165 to Higashida and in further view of 6,755,615 to Chapman and case law.
In Reference to Claim 1
Gebert teaches:
A fan (20) having an impeller (10) having blades (2), an electric motor (6) driving the impeller, and a scroll housing (7), wherein a flow channel (7a) is formed by an inner contour (inner surface of 7) of the scroll housing, wherein an inlet nozzle (21) is provided on an inlet side (left side in Figure 3), and wherein the flow channel guides the air aspirated by the inlet nozzle via the impeller to an outlet (5b), comprising:
a cover plate (1) attached to the impeller, wherein the cover plate has a recessed shape (concave shape, see Figure 3); and
a base plate (3) attached to the impeller, the base plate having a radial outer edge (radially outermost point, see Figure 3) disposed at a first angle (not numbered, see Figure 3) relative to the radial direction, and wherein a transition between the base plate and the scroll housing is disposed at a radial position beyond the impeller blades (see paragraph 45 and Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
768
905
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gebert fails to teach:
The inlet nozzle being surrounded by an inflow area comprising an inflow surface, which inflow area expands the inlet nozzle essentially in a radial direction, transversely to an impeller axis, wherein the inlet nozzle expanded by the inflow area is symmetrical about the impeller axis or rotationally symmetrical about the impeller axis at least for at least one angle of rotation not being a multiple of 360°, and wherein a ring-shaped area of the inlet nozzle expanded by the inflow area projected onto a plane perpendicular to the impeller axis is at least 1.5 times as large as a smallest flow cross-sectional area in a narrowest point of the inlet nozzle, the recessed shape of the cover plate and an inner wall of the inflow area collectively form a secondary flow channel in an interior of the scroll housing and controls a secondary flow into the impeller between the inlet nozzle and the cover plate, wherein the secondary flow channel is formed approximately rotationally symmetrical about the impeller axis, and wherein the inner contour of the scroll housing represents an imaginary extension of the radial outer edge of the base plate at a transition between the base plate and the scroll housing, wherein the imaginary extension is disposed at the first angle relative to the radial direction.
Higashida teaches:
A fan (190) comprising:
a scroll housing (191) and an inlet nozzle (191a) is provided on an inlet side (top of Figure 8), the inlet nozzle being surrounded by an inflow area (193) comprising an inflow surface (flat surface on top of 193 in Figure 8), which inflow area expands the inlet nozzle essentially in a radial direction (left to right in Figure 8), transversely to an impeller axis (axis of rotation O), wherein the inlet nozzle expanded by the inflow area is symmetrical about the impeller axis, and
wherein a ring-shaped area of the inlet nozzle expanded by the inflow area projected onto a plane (radial-circumferential plane in Figure 8) perpendicular to the impeller axis, and a smallest flow cross-sectional area in the narrowest point of the inlet nozzle has an area;
a cover plate (132) attached to the impeller, wherein the cover plate has a recessed shape (upper, radially outer surface of 132) and the recessed shape of the cover plate and an inner wall (surface of 193 facing the cover plate 132) of the inflow area collectively form a secondary flow channel (space between inlet nozzle and side plate 132, where flow X1 passes in Figure 4) in an interior of the scroll housing, which extends in the radial direction beyond the impeller and is open to the flow channel and controls a secondary flow (X1) into the impeller between the inlet nozzle and the cover plate, wherein the secondary flow channel is formed approximately rotationally symmetrical about the impeller axis (see column 4, lines 3 column 7, line 64 through column 8, line 13 and Figures 4 and 8).
Regarding the inflow area, Higashida teaches the convex portion 193 is annular, (column 7, line 67 through column 8, line 2) and therefore is symmetrical about the impeller axis.
Regarding the ring-shaped area, the inflow area forms a ring shape bounded radially inward by the inlet nozzle. The inlet nozzle narrows in the direction of flow toward the fan, and has a smallest flow cross-sectional area at the narrowest point of the inlet nozzle.
PNG
media_image2.png
524
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chapman teaches:
A fan (62) having a base plate (not numbered, see annotated Figure 6) having a radial outer edge (not numbered, see annotated Figure 6) disposed at a first angle (not numbered, see annotated Figure 6) with respect to a radial direction (left to right in Figure 6), wherein an inner contour (65) of a scroll housing (61) represents an imaginary extension of the radial outer edge of the base plate at a transition between the base plate and the scroll housing, wherein the imaginary extension is disposed at the first angle relative to the radial direction (see column 5, lines 47-53 and Figure 6).
The bottom part of the base plate is aligned with the inner contour of the scroll casing. The imaginary extension of the bottom of the base plate transitions into the inner contour as seen in Figure 6.
PNG
media_image3.png
532
891
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Court has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Higashida teaches the inflow area which expands and surrounds the inlet nozzle has a ring shape and the narrowest point of the inlet nozzle has a cross-sectional area which is circular.
The size of the ring-shaped area is related to the size of the impeller. The inflow area is a convex protrusion of the casing, and the shroud (132 of Higashida) fits within the open region directly beneath the protrusion (see Figure 8 of Higashida). If the inflow area increased in radius, then the area of the inflow area increases, and a larger impeller can fit within the inflow area.
There is a reasonable expectation of success that altering the size of the inflow area would still allow the fan to direct air in the desired directions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Gebert by adding an inflow area having an inflow surface to the inlet nozzle and adding a secondary flow as taught by Higashida for the purpose of allowing the secondary flow to smoothly flow between the cover plate and inlet nozzle (column 8, lines 6-10 of Higashida), where the secondary flow reduces turbulence of the flow (column 6, lines 23-27 of Higashida).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Gebert as modified by Higashida by re-shaping the base plate such that the inner contour of the scroll housing represents an imaginary extension of the radial outer edge of the base plate as taught by Chapman as both references are directed to fans having base plates and scroll housings, and which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a base plate which aligns with the inner contour of the scroll housing and provides a smooth transition for the air passing through the impeller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Gebert as modified by Higashida by re-sizing the inflow area such that the ring-shaped area is at least 1.5 times as large as the smallest flow cross-sectional area in view of case law for the purpose of being able to accommodate an impeller of the desired size.
In Reference to Claim 3#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 1, wherein the inflow area is a rotationally symmetric body. The inflow area is an annular structure, which is rotationally symmetric about the impeller axis.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 1, wherein the inlet nozzle expanded by the inflow area is symmetrical about the impeller axis, wherein an elliptical outer contour is rotationally symmetrical about the impeller axis at least for at least one angle of rotation not being a multiple of 360°.
Higashida teaches the inflow area is circular (annular, see column 7, line 64 through column 8, line 5). A circle is a special type of ellipse, and therefore the inflow area has an elliptical outer contour. A circle is rotationally symmetric for any angle of rotation – including at least one angle of rotation which is not a multiple of 360°, such as an angle of 90°.
In Reference to Claim 5#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 1, wherein the inflow area is essentially flat (see Figure 8 of Higashida).
In Reference to Claim 6#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 1, wherein the inflow area extends in the radial direction beyond the radial extension of the impeller (see Figure 8 of Higashida).
In Reference to Claim 7
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 1 comprising the inflow area which, when viewed radially, begins at an outer end (radially outer end) of the inlet nozzle, wherein the inflow area has a local surface curvature of a beginning and the inlet nozzle has an inner contour which has a maximum surface curvature. Figure 8 of Higashida shows the inflow area is approximately flat from the inlet nozzle end toward the radially outer end. The radially outer portion of the inflow area begins to have a curvature toward the transition region of the scroll casing.
PNG
media_image4.png
661
916
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law fails to teach:
The local surface curvature of the inflow area is at most 20% of a maximum surface curvature at the inner contour of the inlet nozzle. Higashida shows the local surface curvature is less than the maximum surface curvature, however Higashida is silent regarding the percentage.
The Court has held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP §2144.05 II A for further clarification). In In re Aller, a claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be obvious over a prior art process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.
In the instant application, Higashida teaches an inflow area which has a local surface curvature which is less than a maximum surface curvature at the inner contour of the inlet nozzle. The shape of the curvature of the inner surface of the inflow area affects the swirling and smooth flow of the working fluid (column 8, lines 6-10 of Higashida).
There is a reasonable expectation of success that changing the curvature of the inflow area because while changing the curvature would affect the swirling being promoted in the annular convex portion 193, the fluid would still be able to swirl and smoothly flow in the space between the inner surface of the casing 191 and the axially extending portion 132b.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law by re-shaping the inflow area such that the local surface curvature is at most 20% of a maximum surface curvature at the inner contour of the inlet nozzle in view of case law for the purpose of optimizing the swirling of the working fluid along the inner surface of the casing.
In Reference to Claim 8#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 1, wherein a radial outer edge (radially outer portion of inflow area, see annotated Figure 8 of Higashida) of the inflow area is adjoined by a transition area (not numbered, see annotated Figure 8) to a contour (side wall of scroll housing 191) of the scroll housing guiding a main flow (working fluid), wherein the transition area is continuous (see annotated portion of Figure 8 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
401
539
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 9#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 8, wherein the inlet nozzle together with the inflow area are an integral part of the scroll housing (see Figure 8 of Higashida). The inlet nozzle and inflow area are monolithic with the scroll housing, and therefore are integral with the scroll housing.
In Reference to Claim 13#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan according to claim 1, wherein the scroll housing comprises a nozzle-side housing half (left half of housing in Figure 3 of Gebert) and a motor-side housing half (right half of housing in Figure 3 of Gebert).
In Reference to Claim 16#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 1, wherein the inlet nozzle is a rotationally symmetric body (see Figure 3 of Gebert).
In Reference to Claim 17#
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan of claim 1, wherein the inner contour of the scroll housing proximate to the imaginary extension is disposed at a second angle relative to the radial direction.
Chapman shows the inner contour of the scroll housing is aligned with the base plate which is angled with respect to the radial direction (and the first angle is formed between the radial direction and base plate). Accordingly, there is a second angle between the radial direction and the inner contour. Since the inner contour and base plate are aligned, the value for the first angle equals the value for the second angle (see Figure 6 of Chapman).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0176594 to Gebert as modified by US 8,192,165 to Higashida, US 6,755,615 to Chapman and case law as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 5,336,046 to Hashimoto.
In Reference to Claim 14
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan according to claim 13 wherein the nozzle-side housing half and the motor-side housing half are connected to one another.
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law fails to teach:
The nozzle-side housing half and the motor-side housing half are connected to one another via a connection area forming a flange, by one of screws, rivets, adhesives, or clips.
Hashimoto teaches:
A fan (1) comprising a scroll housing (3), wherein the scroll housing comprises a nozzle-side housing half (20) and a motor-side housing half (70), wherein the nozzle-side housing half and the motor-side housing half are connected to one another via a connection area forming a flange (flanges for screws 13a), by screws (13a) (see column 3, lines 36-47 and Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law by forming the scroll casing of two separable halves joined by a flange and screws as taught by Hashimoto as both references are directed to centrifugal blowers comprising scroll casings, and for the purpose of making assembly of the fan easier by using smaller pieces joined together, and making repairs of the scroll housing easier by only needing to replace the damage half rather than the entire scroll housing.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0176594 to Gebert as modified by US 8,192,165 to Higashida, US 6,755,615 to Chapman and case law as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 9,441,642 to Rao.
In Reference to Claim 15
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law teaches:
The fan according to claim 13 comprising the nozzle-side housing half and the motor-side housing half.
Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law fails to teach:
The nozzle-side housing half and the motor-side housing half are formed with reinforcing elements.
Rao teaches:
A fan comprising a scroll housing (110), wherein the scroll housing comprises a nozzle-side housing half (bottom half of scroll housing 110 in Figure 5) and a motor-side housing half (top half of scroll housing 110 in Figure 5), wherein the nozzle-side housing half and the motor-side housing half are formed with reinforcing elements (ribs 1231) (see column 3, lines 43-63 and Figures 5 and 6a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Gebert as modified by Higashida, Chapman and case law by adding reinforcing elements as taught by Rao as both references are directed to centrifugal fans comprising scroll housings, and for the purpose of reducing vibrations (column 3, lines 59-61 of Rao).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights