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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 06/30/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. The Applicant has overcome the claim objections of record and it has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 8-9 regarding Ailloud and the rejection of claim 1 not showing “the ratio of the height of the guide member (H1) relative to the dimension H2 between the plane through the end of the blades closest to the guide member and the plane containing the air outlet opening”,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are spurious, as the Applicant argues context not included in the claim language.
The limitation argued is “wherein a height of the guide member measured along a direction parallel to the axis of rotation between a first plane passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes and a second plane passing through the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes represents at least 50% of a dimension measured between a third plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and passing through at least one end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member and a fourth plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and containing the air outlet opening.”
MPEP 2112.01 states “It should be noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”;
with the structural limitations met by Ailloud, as it has shown wherein a height of the guide member (Fig. 2/3/4, see Annotated Figure 1) measured along a direction parallel to the axis of rotation between a first plane (Fig. 3 – the first plane is perpendicular to the axis of rotation R, passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes) passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes (Fig. 2/3/4 – the first plane, perpendicular to the axis of rotation R, passes through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes, as followed in the flow direction) and a second plane (Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 1 – the second plane is perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and is located at the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes, with the height being the distance from leading edge to trailing edge) passing through the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes (Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 1) represents a certain percentage of a dimension measured between a third plane (see Annotated Figure 2) perpendicular to the axis of rotation (see Annotated Figure 2) and passing through at least one end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member (see Annotated Figure 2) and a fourth plane (see Annotated Figure 2) perpendicular to the axis of rotation (see Annotated Figure 2) and containing the air outlet opening (see Annotated Figure 2), and with the Examiner citing MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A “OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS”, the Applicant further argues over the lack of motivation to combine, which the Examiner would point to Pages 4-5 of the Non-Final office action filed 03/31/2026 for the motivation to combine.
Lastly, the Examiner would point out that the Applicant agues, but does not provide any criticality for the claimed limitation in their arguments, all of which overcomes the Applicants arguments.
In response to Applicants argument on page 11 regarding Ailloud and the rejection of claims 12 & 13 not showing respective relative indicia,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed towards the rejections of claims 12 & 13 are reflective of the Applicants arguments above; in the case of claims 12 & 13, the Applicant argues “For example, claim 12 recites a first radius (R1) of between 75 and 85 mm, whereas Ailloud discloses a first radius of between 36 and 54 mm - ranges that do not overlap. Similarly, claim 13 recites first angles (131) of between 17° and 230 (first portion), 14° and 19° (second portion), and 100 and 15° (third portion), whereas Ailloud discloses values of between 4˚ and 6.2˚, 6˚ and 9.3˚, and 3.4˚ and 5.2˚, respectively”, however, this is ignoring that claims 12 & 13 were also rejected using MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.a for those indicia, again, with accompanying motivation, overcoming the Applicants argument.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ailloud et al (FR2006292), hereinafter referred to as Ailloud (US 2023/0219394 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ailloud (FR2006292) shows a ventilation device for a ventilation, heating and/or air- conditioning system of a vehicle, the ventilation device comprising:
at least one housing (100, Fig. 8) that comprises at least one wall (114, Fig. 2) contributing to the definition of an inner volume (Fig. 8) in which at least one radial propeller (120, Fig. 8) and one guide member (130, Fig. 8) are received,
wherein the radial propeller is configured to be rotated about an axis of rotation (R, Fig. 8),
the radial propeller comprising a plurality of blades (122, Fig. 3), each of which is at least delimited by a first axial end and a second axial end (Fig. 3), the guide member comprising a plurality of vanes (132, Fig. 4) at least delimited by a leading edge and a trailing edge (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the radial propeller and the guide member are configured to force the circulation of an air flow through the housing along the axis of rotation between an air inlet opening (111, Fig. 8) and an air outlet opening (112, Fig. 2/8) of the ventilation device (Fig. 8),
wherein a height of the guide member (Fig. 2/3/4, see Annotated Figure 1) measured along a direction parallel to the axis of rotation between a first plane (Fig. 3 – the first plane is perpendicular to the axis of rotation R, passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes) passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes (Fig. 2/3/4 – the first plane, perpendicular to the axis of rotation R, passes through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes, as followed in the flow direction) and a second plane (Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 1 – the second plane is perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and is located at the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes, with the height being the distance from leading edge to trailing edge) passing through the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes (Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 1) represents a certain percentage of a dimension measured between a third plane (see Annotated Figure 2) perpendicular to the axis of rotation (see Annotated Figure 2) and passing through at least one end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member (see Annotated Figure 2) and a fourth plane (see Annotated Figure 2) perpendicular to the axis of rotation (see Annotated Figure 2) and containing the air outlet opening (see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation “wherein a height of the guide member measured along a direction parallel to the axis of rotation between a first plane passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes and a second plane passing through the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes represents at least 50% of a dimension measured between a third plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and passing through at least one end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member and a fourth plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and containing the air outlet opening”. The courts have held that where general condition of claim(s) is disposed in the Ailloud, where Ailloud shows a height of the guide member (Fig. 2/3/4, see Annotated Figure 1) measured along a direction parallel to the axis of rotation between a first plane (Fig. 3 – the first plane is perpendicular to the axis of rotation R, passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes) passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes (Fig. 2/3/4 – the first plane, perpendicular to the axis of rotation R, passes through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes, as followed in the flow direction) and a second plane (Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 1 – the second plane is perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and is located at the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes, with the height being the distance from leading edge to trailing edge) passing through the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes (Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 1) represents a certain percentage of a dimension measured between a third plane (see Annotated Figure 2) perpendicular to the axis of rotation (see Annotated Figure 2) and passing through at least one end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member (see Annotated Figure 2) and a fourth plane (see Annotated Figure 2) perpendicular to the axis of rotation (see Annotated Figure 2) and containing the air outlet opening (see Annotated Figure 2). It is not inventive to discover the workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and modify Aillouds dimensions of the guide member and the plurality of vanes thereon wherein a height of the guide member measured along a direction parallel to the axis of rotation between a first plane passing through the leading edge of the plurality of vanes and a second plane passing through the trailing edge of the plurality of vanes represents at least 50% of a dimension measured between a third plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and passing through at least one end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member and a fourth plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and containing the air outlet opening, for the predictable result and benefit of providing a ventilation device that is less bulky than the ventilation devices of the prior art in which the air flow has a substantially constant flow rate at all points of the air outlet opening (¶0006).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
592
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 2, Ailloud shows wherein the plurality of vanes is fixed and rigidly connected to the wall of the housing (¶0009/0055).
Regarding claim 3, Ailloud shows wherein a relative height of the guide member (130, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim3 and the limitation “wherein the height of the guide member is between 60 and 85 mm”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the height of the guide member being between 60 and 85 mm instead of having a relative height of the guide member, because applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the guide member being between 60 and 85 mm provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the height of the guide member being between 60 and 85 mm or having a relative height of the guide member, because both arrangements perform the functions of pressurizing and discharging air equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C)
Regarding claim 4, Ailloud shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the height of the guide member (see Annotated Figure 1) represents a percentage of the dimension measured between the third plane passing through the end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member (see Annotated Figure 2) and the fourth plane containing the air outlet opening (see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation “wherein the height of the guide member represents between 60 and 65% of the dimension measured between the third plane passing through the end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member and the fourth plane containing the air outlet opening”. The courts have held that where general condition of claim(s) is disposed in the Ailloud, where Ailloud shows the height of the guide member (see Annotated Figure 1) represents a percentage of the dimension measured between the third plane passing through the end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member (see Annotated Figure 2) and the fourth plane containing the air outlet opening (see Annotated Figure 2). It is not inventive to discover the workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aillouds dimensions of the guide member to provide wherein the height of the guide member represents between 60 and 65% of the dimension measured between the third plane passing through the end of the plurality of blades closest to the guide member and the fourth plane containing the air outlet opening, for the predictable result and benefit of providing a ventilation device that is less bulky than the ventilation devices of the prior art in which the air flow has a substantially constant flow rate at all points of the air outlet opening (¶0006).
Regarding claim 5, Ailloud shows wherein at least two successive vanes are at least partially superposed (Fig. 4 – at least two successive vanes are at least partially superposed, as seen in Fig. 4), along a direction parallel to the axis of rotation of the radial propeller (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Ailloud shows further comprising at least one air filter (113, Fig. 8),
wherein the air filter comprises an air inlet (Fig. 8 – the air inlet of the air filter is where the flow enters the filter) that is contained in an inlet plane of the air flow parallel to the plane containing the air outlet opening (113, Fig. 8) of the ventilation device (Fig. 8 = the at least one air filter comprises of its own air inlet that is contained in an inlet plane of the airflow that is parallel to the plane containing the air outlet opening).
Regarding claim 7, Ailloud shows further comprising at least one heat exchanger (202, Fig. 1),
wherein the heat exchanger comprises an air inlet (Fig. 1 – the heat exchanger air inlet is located where the flow enters the heat exchanger) that is contained in an inlet plane of the air flow parallel to the plane containing the air outlet opening of the ventilation device (Fig. 1 - the at least one heat exchanger comprises of its own air inlet that is contained in an inlet plane of the airflow that is parallel to the plane containing the air outlet opening).
Regarding claim 8, Ailloud shows
wherein the guide member (130, Fig. 2) comprises a bowl (see Annotated Figure 1) around which the plurality of vanes is evenly positioned (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein at least one vane of the plurality of vanes comprises a front side (see Annotated Figure 1) and a back side (see Annotated Figure 1) each extending between a proximal end of the vane in contact with the bowl (see Annotated Figure 1) and a distal end of the vane in contact with the wall (114, Fig. ) of the housing (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ailloud shows further comprising a motor (140, Fig. 2, ¶0040) for driving the radial propeller held by the bowl of the guide member (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Ailloud shows wherein a dimension measured between the proximal end and the distal end of the vane grows increasingly between the leading edge and the trailing edge (see Annotated Figure 1 – the proximal and distal ends of the vanes grows increasingly between the leading edge and the railing edge by a measured dimension, as can be seen with the vane getting a larger surface area as the vane extends towards its distal end).
Regarding claim 11, Ailloud shows
wherein the vane comprises a first portion (S1, Fig. 4), a second portion (S2, Fig. 4), and a third portion (S3, Fig. 4) aligned in that order from the proximal end toward the distal end (see Annotated Figure 1),
the vane comprising at least one transverse cross-section (AA, BB, CC, Fig. 4), viewed in a plane perpendicular to a radial direction of the axis of rotation (Fig. 7), contained along a camber line (C, Fig. 4/5) between the leading edge and the trailing edge (Fig. 5, See Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the camber line is different in each of the first, second, and third portions of the vane (Fig. 4/7 – as the camber line extends, the line of the camber is different at every one of the first, second, and third sections of the vane).
Regarding claim 12, Ailloud shows
wherein a first radius (R1, Fig. 4) measured between the axis of rotation (3, Fig. 3/4) and the first portion (S1, Fig. 2) along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 36 and 54 mm (¶0072),
wherein a second radius (R2, Fig. 4) measured between the axis of rotation (3, Fig. 3/4) and the second portion (S2, Fig. 4) measured along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 64 and 96 mm (¶0072), and
wherein a third radius (R3, Fig. 4) measured between the axis of rotation (3, Fig. 3/4) and the third portion (S3, Fig. 4) measured along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is equal or substantially equal to 100 mm (¶0059).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation “wherein a first radius measured between the axis of rotation and the first portion along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 75 and 85 mm,
wherein a second radius measured between the axis of rotation and the second portion measured along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 85 and 95 mm, and
wherein a third radius measured between the axis of rotation and the third portion measured along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 100 and 110 mm. The courts have held that where general condition of claim(s) is disposed in the Ailloud, where Ailloud shows a first radius (R1, Fig. 4) measured between the axis of rotation (3, Fig. 3/4) and the first portion (S1, Fig. 2) along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 36 and 54 mm (¶0072), wherein a second radius (R2, Fig. 4) measured between the axis of rotation (3, Fig. 3/4) and the second portion (S2, Fig. 4) measured along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 64 and 96 mm (¶0072), and wherein a third radius (R3, Fig. 4) measured between the axis of rotation (3, Fig. 3/4) and the third portion (S3, Fig. 4) measured along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is equal or substantially equal to 100 mm (¶0059). It is not inventive to discover the workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and modify Aillouds dimensions of the plurality of vanes wherein a first radius measured between the axis of rotation and the first portion along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 75 and 85 mm, wherein a second radius measured between the axis of rotation and the second portion measured along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 85 and 95 mm, and wherein a third radius measured between the axis of rotation and the third portion measured along a direction radial to the axis of rotation is between 100 and 110 mm, for the predictable result and benefit of providing a ventilation device that is less bulky than the ventilation devices of the prior art in which the air flow has a substantially constant flow rate at all points of the air outlet opening (¶0006).
Regarding claim 13, Ailloud shows wherein the camber line (C, Fig. 5) followed by the vane in each portion is contained in a circle (¶0062),
wherein a first angle (β1, Fig. 5) is formed between a tangent to the circle passing through the leading edge and a direction passing through the leading edge (Fig. 5) and contained both in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and in a plane containing the circle (Fig. 5),
wherein the first angle (β1, Fig. 5) has a value of between 4˚ and 6.2˚ in the first portion (¶0067), a value of between 6˚ and 9.3˚ in the second portion (¶0067), and a value of between 3.4˚ and 5.2˚ in the third portion (¶0067).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation “wherein the first angle has a value of between 17˚ and 23˚ in the first portion, a value of between 14˚ and 19˚ in the second portion, and a value of between 10˚ and 15˚ in the third portion”. The courts have held that where general condition of claim(s) is disposed in the Ailloud, where Ailloud shows wherein the first angle (β1, Fig. 5) has a value of between 4˚ and 6.2˚ in the first portion (¶0067), a value of between 6˚ and 9.3˚ in the second portion (¶0067), and a value of between 3.4˚ and 5.2˚ in the third portion (¶0067). It is not inventive to discover the workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and modify Aillouds dimensions of the plurality of vanes to have the first angle has a value of between 17˚ and 23˚ in the first portion, a value of between 14˚ and 19˚ in the second portion, and a value of between 10˚ and 15˚ in the third portion, for the predictable result and benefit of providing a ventilation device in which the air flow has a substantially constant flow rate at all points of the air outlet opening (¶0006).
Regarding claim 14, Ailloud shows
wherein the camber line (C, Fig. 6) followed by the vane in each portion is contained in a circle (¶0062),
wherein a second angle (β2, Fig. 6) is formed between a tangent to the circle passing through the trailing edge (Fig. 6) and a direction passing through the trailing edge and contained both in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and in a plane containing the circle (Fig. 6),
wherein the second angle (β2, Fig. 6) has a value of between 85˚ and 128˚ in the first portion (¶0067), a value of between 79.5˚ and 119.3˚ in the second portion (¶0067), and a value of between 79.4˚ and 119.3˚ in the third portion (¶0067).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation “wherein the second angle has a value of between 95˚ and 100˚ in the first portion, a value of between 105˚ and 110˚ in the second portion, and a value of between 112˚ and 117˚ in the third portion”. The courts have held that where general condition of claim(s) is disposed in the Ailloud, where Ailloud shows the second angle (β2, Fig. 6) has a value of between 85˚ and 128˚ in the first portion (¶0067), a value of between 79.5˚ and 119.3˚ in the second portion (¶0067), and a value of between 79.4˚ and 119.3˚ in the third portion (¶0067). It is not inventive to discover the workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and modify Aillouds dimensions of the plurality of vanes to have the second angle has a value of between 95˚ and 100˚ in the first portion, a value of between 105˚ and 110˚ in the second portion, and a value of between 112˚ and 117˚ in the third portion, for the predictable result and benefit of providing a ventilation device in which the air flow has a substantially constant flow rate at all points of the air outlet opening (¶0006).
Regarding claim 15, Ailloud shows a ventilation, heating and and/or air-conditioning system for a vehicle (¶0001), the system comprising at least one ventilation device as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 2).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related ventilation devices:
US 6,905,535 - Keefer discloses a ventilation device of a fan with blades that are curved
US 2002/0004008 – Miyata discloses a ventilation fan with two sets of curved fan blades with their own relative angles
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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights