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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/1/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 4/1/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections/rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejections, in paragraph 4 of page 7 through paragraph 2 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest features of Applicant’s invention.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to prior art. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character 155 is used, in Fig 4 at least, to designate both “the primary airflow 155” (e.g. para 0030) and “the primary airflow path 155” (e.g. para 0030).
For each of the drawing objections above, 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig 4 the arrow located at the top center, between reference characters 152 and 110, pointing generally upward from the tip of a blade 158, is not labeled. This has become an issue now because Applicant has amended the claims to specify details of and distinguish between the primary airflow/primary airflow path 155 and the secondary airflow path 148. The drawings currently do not make clear where exactly the primary airflow path 155 exists and where exactly is the distinction between the primary airflow path 155 and the secondary airflow path 148. It is currently assumed that this unlabeled arrow is part of the primary airflow/primary airflow path 155.
For each of the drawing objections above, 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 Interpretation
Examiner’s note: Regarding the term “substantially parallel” (claim 7), it is assumed that this term refers to structure which is parallel and that this term simply allows for slight deviation related to things like manufacturing/assembly/operational tolerances.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-17 is/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 1 (lines 16-20) recites the limitation “wherein a portion of the primary airflow (155) passes between the shroud wall (152) and the volute (140) and enters into the annular gap (156) as a secondary airflow (148), and wherein the secondary airflow (148) is reintroduced into the primary airflow (155) after the secondary airflow (148) flows across the plurality of impeller blades (158) to an outer-most radial edge of the impeller (150) and then through the annular gap (156)” which renders the claim indefinite because:
(note that this rejection is primarily regarding the confusion caused by the limitation “the secondary airflow (148) flows across the plurality of impeller blades (158) to an outer-most radial edge of the impeller (150) and then through the annular gap (156)”)
it is unclear which of the following mutually exclusive interpretations apply:
a portion of the primary airflow (155) passes between the shroud wall (152) and the volute (140), and the secondary airflow (148) enters into the annular gap (156), or
a portion of the primary airflow (155), as a secondary airflow (148), passes between the shroud wall (152) and the volute (140) and enters into the annular gap (156)
If it is the former, then it is also unclear how the secondary airflow 148 can possibly “flow across the plurality of impeller blades (158) to an outer-most radial edge of the impeller and then through the annular gap” wherein it is the primary airflow (155) which passes between the shroud wall (152) and the volute (140) (and wherein the secondary airflow thus encounter no blades to pass across before entering the annular gap).
If it is the latter, then there will be a subsequent drawing objection for the drawings not clearly showing the secondary airflow (148) flowing “across the plurality of impeller blades (158) before reaching the outer-most radial edge of the impeller”, because, as currently shown, it appears that the primary airflow 155, not the secondary airflow 148, “flows across the plurality of impeller blades (158) before reaching the outer-most radial edge of the impeller”. Or is it that Applicant considers both the primary airflow 155 and the secondary airflow 148 to flow across the blades before reaching the outer-most radial edge of the impeller? If so, this would appear to require two airflows to occupy the same one space which may introduce confusion to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 (lines 18-22) recites the same limitation, suffering from the same deficiency, thus is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-11, 14-17 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20080279681 A1 (hereinafter Eguchi).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 3a, rotated to correspond to Applicant's figures
PNG
media_image2.png
707
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 9a, rotated
Regarding claim 1, Eguchi discloses:
A blower assembly (1; Fig 3) for an appliance,
the blower assembly defining a radial direction (Fig 3 shows this), a circumferential direction (Fig 3 shows this), and an axial direction (along axis O in Fig 3, Fig 9),
the blower assembly comprising:
a motor (4; Fig 3);
a housing (3; Fig 3) comprising a front wall (22 combined with 27; Fig 3 and Fig 9) and a rear wall (annotated Fig 3a) defining a volute (outer volute and inner volute in annotated Fig 3a) therebetween,
the front wall defining a primary airflow inlet (at reference character “O” in Fig 3);
and an impeller (2; Fig 3) positioned within the volute,
the impeller being mechanically coupled to the motor for rotating the impeller within the housing about an axis of rotation (O; Fig 3) to direct a primary airflow into the primary airflow inlet and throughout the appliance along a primary airflow path (Fig 3 shows all this),
the impeller comprising:
a hub wall (11; Fig 3) arranged adjacent to the rear wall (Fig 3 shows this);
and a shroud wall (73 combined with 76 in Fig 9, which corresponds to 13 in Fig 3) spaced apart from the hub wall (Fig 3 shows this),
and a shroud wall (73 combined with 76 in Fig 9, which corresponds to 13 in Fig 3) spaced apart from the hub wall along the axial direction (Fig 9 shows this) with a plurality of impeller blades (12; Fig 9, Fig 3) arranged therebetween (Fig 9 shows this), the hub wall and the shroud wall each defining a longitudinal axis (annotated Fig 9a, defined by the cross sections shown in Fig 9) extending in the radial direction,
the shroud wall arranged adjacent to and being spaced apart from the front wall of the housing along the axial direction to define an annular gap (Fig 9 shows an annular gap) therebetween (Fig 9 shows this),
wherein a portion of the primary airflow passes between the shroud wall and the volute and enters into the annular gap as a secondary airflow (annotated Fig 9a) (one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the secondary airflow originates as a leak from the primary airflow; this is also supported by, for example, para 0008: “some of the air that has been force fed into the flow passage flows back from this gap into an area on the radially inside of the blades of the impeller”),
and wherein the secondary airflow is reintroduced into the primary airflow (paragraph 0040 discusses this) after the secondary airflow flows across the plurality of impeller blades (Fig 9 indicates this in a configuration analogous to Applicant’s, see examiner’s note regarding analogous configurations) to an outer-most radial edge (shown in Fig 9 near the leader line of reference character 76) of the impeller and then through the annular gap (this is all clearly discussed/shown in para 0040, Fig 3, Fig 9),
wherein an inner edge (radially inner-most edge of 73; Fig 9) of the shroud wall comprises a shroud feature (annotated Fig 9a) configured to cause the secondary airflow from the gap to align with the primary airflow entering the primary airflow inlet so as to minimize turbulence (Fig 9 shows this),
and wherein the primary airflow inlet of the housing defines a housing feature (26; Fig 9) aligned with the shroud feature (Fig 9 shows this) to direct the secondary airflow from the annular gap to align with the primary airflow inlet (Fig 9 shows this),
the shroud feature and the housing feature comprising corresponding arcuate shapes (Fig 9 clearly shows this).
Examiner’s note regarding analogous configurations:
Courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
It has also been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
In this case, the device in the prior art reference has all the necessary structure and therefore performs the claimed function in the same manner as Applicant’s device. Since the prior art discloses all of the same structural elements which Applicant claims, the prior art structure would be expected to perform the same as Applicant’s structure, particularly with regard to the flow characteristics of the secondary airflow.
Regarding claim 3, Eguchi further discloses:
the housing feature overlaps the shroud feature in the axial direction (Fig 9 shows this).
Regarding claim 4, Eguchi further discloses:
the volute comprises an outer volute (annotated Fig 3a) and an inner volute (annotated Fig 3a)inner volute,
the outer volute surrounding the inner volute in the radial direction (Fig 3 shows this).
Regarding claim 5, Eguchi further discloses:
at least a portion of the front wall is arcuate in shape (Fig 9 shows this).
Regarding claim 8, Eguchi further discloses:
the housing feature has a hook shape (Fig 9 shows this) and the shroud feature fits within the hook shape (Fig 9 shows this).
Regarding claim 9, Eguchi further discloses:
the shroud feature has a J-shape (Fig 9 shows this).
Regarding claim 10, Eguchi further discloses:
the rear wall of the housing defines an annular receptacle (annotated Fig 3a) for receiving the motor,
the annular receptacle having a receptacle depth extending in the axial direction (Fig 3 shows this) and a receptacle diameter concentrically aligned with the impeller (Fig 3 shows this),
the motor being at least partially enclosed by the exterior surface of the rear wall when received by the annular receptacle (Fig 3 shows this).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi.
Regarding claim 7, Eguchi discloses all claim limitations (see above) except:
the shroud wall and at least a portion of the front wall of the housing are substantially parallel.
However, courts have established that a change in form, proportions, or degree, will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather a form of routine optimization which would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, because the prior art’s form between the shroud wall and at least a portion of the front wall is clearly shown to be near-parallel at multiple locations (see Eguchi Fig 9), the difference is held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014109201 A (hereinafter “Matsumoto”) in view of Eguchi.
Examiner's note: The below is a parallel rejection of claim 1.
Examiner's note: For the purposes of examining this patent application, the examiner's submitted English translation of Matsumoto, submitted with the office action dated 12/29/2023, is referenced hereinafter.
PNG
media_image3.png
716
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Matsumoto Annotated Fig 2a
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses:
A blower assembly for an appliance (line 25: “a dryer”),
the blower assembly defining a radial direction (vertical direction in Fig 2), a circumferential direction (into and out of the page in Fig 2), and an axial direction (direction of axis X in Fig 2),
the blower assembly comprising:
a motor (A; Fig 2);
a housing (20; Fig 2) comprising a front wall (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) and a rear wall (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) defining a volute (outer volute and inner volute in Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) therebetween,
the front wall defining a primary airflow inlet (24; Fig 2);
and an impeller (10; Fig 2) positioned within the volute,
the impeller being mechanically coupled to the motor for rotating the impeller within the housing (Fig 2 shows this) about an axis of rotation (X; Fig 2) to direct a primary airflow (the air flowing through air suction port 24 and through blades 13) into the primary airflow inlet and throughout the appliance along a primary airflow path (the path from air suction port 24 and through blades 13),
the impeller comprising:
a hub wall (11; Fig 2) arranged adjacent to the rear wall (Fig 2 shows this);
and a shroud wall (12; Fig 2) spaced apart from the hub wall (Fig 2 shows this) along the axial direction (Fig 2 shows this) with a plurality of impeller blades (13; Fig 2) arranged therebetween (Fig 2 shows this), the hub wall and the shroud wall each defining a longitudinal axis (Fig 2 shows this) extending in the radial direction,
the shroud wall arranged adjacent to and being spaced apart from the front wall of the housing along the axial direction to define an annular gap (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) therebetween,
wherein a portion of the primary airflow passes between the shroud wall and the volute and enters into the annular gap as a secondary airflow (the air flowing through the gap; Fig 2) (one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the secondary airflow originates as a leak from the primary airflow; this is also supported by, for example, lines 201-203: “When static pressure increases, the air in the air flow path R tends to flow from the space between the side plate 12 of the impeller 10 and the side wall 25 on the suction side of the casing 20 toward the air suction port 24.”),
and wherein the secondary airflow is reintroduced into the primary airflow after the secondary airflow flows across the plurality of impeller blades (Fig 2 indicates this in a configuration analogous to Applicant’s, see examiner’s note regarding analogous configurations) to an outer-most radial edge (shown in Fig 2 near the leader line of reference character 10) of the impeller and then through the annular gap (Fig 2 shows all this; note that the disclosure is entirely directed towards minimizing/reducing air flow flowing through the gap and past feature 12b and feature 32 but acknowledges that there is still airflow flowing through the gap and back towards the impeller inlet past feature 12b and feature 32, as identified, for example, in lines 249-252: “since the impeller-side annular convex portion 12b is inserted between the casing-side first annular convex portion 31 and the casing-side first small-diameter annular convex portion 32, the air in the air flow path R is impeller 10. It becomes more difficult to flow toward the rotation center direction, and the blowing efficiency can be improved”; one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that if any air is flowing through the gap towards the impeller inlet, some must flow past feature 12b and feature 32 because a gap exist there which is not air tight.),
wherein an inner edge (radially inward end of the plate 12; Fig 2) of the shroud wall comprises a shroud feature (12b; Fig 2) configured to cause the secondary airflow from the gap to align with the primary airflow entering the primary airflow inlet so as to minimize turbulence (line 195: “the inflow of air becomes smooth”),
and wherein the primary airflow inlet of the housing defines a housing feature (32; Fig 2) aligned with the shroud feature to direct the secondary airflow from the annular gap to align with the primary airflow inlet (Fig 2 shows this),
Matsumoto may not explicitly disclose:
the shroud feature and the housing feature comprising corresponding arcuate shapes.
However, Eguchi, in the same field of endeavor, centrifugal blowers, teaches:
the shroud feature (77; Fig 9; this corresponds to Matsumoto’s 12b) and the housing feature (26; Fig 9; this corresponds to Matsumoto’s 32) comprising corresponding arcuate shapes (Fig 9 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumoto to include Eguchi’s teachings as described above, having Matsumoto’s housing feature and shroud feature shaped/configured as Eguchi’s housing feature and shroud feature, in order to have the airflow which is released to the blades in a state in which disturbance in the airflow has been reduced, and hence noise can be reduced (paragraph 0104). The discussion points above regarding Matsumoto’s gap entirely apply to the gap and gap features as modified by Eguchi’s teachings.
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the housing feature overlaps the shroud feature in the axial direction (Eguchi Fig 9 shows this).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the volute comprises an outer volute (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) and an inner volute (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a)inner volute,
the outer volute surrounding the inner volute in the radial direction (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
at least a portion of the front wall is arcuate in shape (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the shroud wall and at least a portion of the front wall of the housing are substantially parallel (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the housing feature has a hook shape (Eguchi Fig 9 shows this) and the shroud feature fits within the hook shape (Eguchi Fig 9 shows this).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the shroud feature has a J-shape (Matsumoto Fig 2 combined with Eguchi Fig 9 shows this).
Examiner’s note: The parallel rejection of claim 10 below is provided in case Applicant disagrees with the 102 rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the rear wall of the housing defines an annular receptacle (Matsumoto 26a; Fig 2) for receiving the motor,
the annular receptacle having a receptacle depth extending in the axial direction (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows that 26a has a depth in the axial direction) and a receptacle diameter concentrically aligned with the impeller (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows that 26a has a diameter concentrically aligned with the impeller 10),
the motor being at least partially enclosed by the exterior surface of the rear wall when received by the annular receptacle (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows that motor A, identified by the dashes lines, is inserted into the recess and enclosed by the exterior surface of the rear wall).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto discloses:
A laundry appliance (line 25: “a dryer”), comprising:
a motor (A; Fig 2);
and a blower assembly (1; Fig 2),
the blower assembly defining a radial direction (vertical direction in Fig 2), a circumferential direction (into and out of the page in Fig 2), and an axial direction (direction of axis X in Fig 2),
the blower assembly comprising:
a housing (20; Fig 2) comprising a front wall (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) and a rear wall (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) defining a volute (outer volute and inner volute in Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) therebetween,
the front wall defining a primary airflow inlet (24; Fig 2),
the rear wall of the housing defining an annular receptacle (26a; Fig 2) for receiving the motor;
an impeller (10; Fig 2) positioned within the volute,
the impeller being mechanically coupled to the motor for rotating the impeller within the housing (Fig 2 shows this) about an axis of rotation (X; Fig 2) to direct a primary airflow (the air flowing through air suction port 24 and through blades 13) into the primary airflow inlet and throughout the appliance along a primary airflow path (the path from air suction port 24 and through blades 13),
the impeller comprising:
a hub wall (11; Fig 2) arranged adjacent to the rear wall (Fig 2 shows this);
and a shroud wall (12; Fig 2) spaced apart from the hub wall (Fig 2 shows this) along the axial direction (Fig 2 shows this) with a plurality of impeller blades (13; Fig 2) arranged therebetween (Fig 2 shows this), the hub wall and the shroud wall each defining a longitudinal axis (Fig 2 shows this) extending in the radial direction,
the shroud wall arranged adjacent to and being spaced apart from the front wall of the housing along the axial direction to define an annular gap (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) therebetween,
wherein a portion of the primary airflow passes between the shroud wall and the volute and enters into the annular gap as a secondary airflow (the air flowing through the gap; Fig 2) (one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the secondary airflow originates as a leak from the primary airflow; this is also supported by, for example, lines 201-203: “When static pressure increases, the air in the air flow path R tends to flow from the space between the side plate 12 of the impeller 10 and the side wall 25 on the suction side of the casing 20 toward the air suction port 24.”),
and wherein the secondary airflow is reintroduced into the primary airflow after the secondary airflow flows across the plurality of impeller blades (Fig 2 indicates this in a configuration analogous to Applicant’s, see examiner’s note regarding analogous configurations) to an outer-most radial edge (shown in Fig 2 near the leader line of reference character 10) of the impeller and then through the annular gap (Fig 2 shows all this; note that the disclosure is entirely directed towards minimizing/reducing air flow flowing through the gap and past feature 12b and feature 32 but acknowledges that there is still airflow flowing through the gap and back towards the impeller inlet past feature 12b and feature 32, as identified, for example, in lines 249-252: “since the impeller-side annular convex portion 12b is inserted between the casing-side first annular convex portion 31 and the casing-side first small-diameter annular convex portion 32, the air in the air flow path R is impeller 10. It becomes more difficult to flow toward the rotation center direction, and the blowing efficiency can be improved”; one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that if any air is flowing through the gap towards the impeller inlet, some must flow past feature 12b and feature 32 because a gap exist there which is not air tight.),
wherein an inner edge (radially inward end of the plate 12; Fig 2) of the shroud wall comprises a shroud feature (12b; Fig 2) configured to cause the secondary airflow from the gap to align with the primary airflow entering the primary airflow inlet so as to minimize turbulence (line 195: “the inflow of air becomes smooth”),
and wherein the primary airflow inlet of the housing defines a housing feature (32; Fig 2) aligned with the shroud feature to direct the secondary airflow from the annular gap to align with the primary airflow inlet (Fig 2 shows this),
Matsumoto does not disclose:
a cabinet defining an interior volume having a cabinet inlet and a cabinet outlet;
and a blower assembly mounted within the cabinet,
It is well known and conventional in the art of dryer appliances (Matsumoto discloses “a dryer” in line 25) to have a cabinet defining an interior volume having a cabinet inlet and a cabinet outlet; and a blower assembly mounted within the cabinet, for the purposes of creating a clothes drying appliance which can dry clothes in the cabinet by using a blower. Matsumoto is silent regarding this limitation because it is so well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the claimed invention, to have a cabinet defining an interior volume having a cabinet inlet and a cabinet outlet; and a blower assembly mounted within the cabinet for the purposes of creating a clothes drying appliance which can dry clothes in the cabinet by using a blower.
Matsumoto does not disclose:
the shroud feature and the housing feature comprising corresponding arcuate shapes.
However, Eguchi, in the same field of endeavor, centrifugal blowers, teaches:
the shroud feature (77; Fig 9; this corresponds to Matsumoto’s 12b) and the housing feature (26; Fig 9; this corresponds to Matsumoto’s 32) comprising corresponding arcuate shapes (Fig 9 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumoto to include Eguchi’s teachings as described above, having Matsumoto’s housing feature and shroud feature shaped/configured as Eguchi’s housing feature and shroud feature, in order to have the airflow which is released to the blades in a state in which disturbance in the airflow has been reduced, and hence noise can be reduced (paragraph 0104). The discussion points above regarding Matsumoto’s gap entirely apply to the gap and gap features as modified by Eguchi’s teachings.
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the housing feature overlaps the shroud feature in the axial direction (Eguchi Fig 9 shows this).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the volute comprises an outer volute (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a) and an inner volute (Matsumoto annotated Fig 2a),
the outer volute surrounding the inner volute in the radial direction (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 16, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
at least a portion of the front wall is arcuate in shape (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows the radially outward most portion of the front wall is arcuate).
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto, as modified above, further discloses:
the shroud wall is spaced apart from the outer volute of the housing along the radial direction (Matsumoto Fig 2 shows the radially outer most portion of the shroud wall is spaced apart from protrusion 31 of the outer volute along the radial direction),
the inner edge of the shroud wall being spaced apart from the housing feature along the radial direction (Eguchi Fig 9 clearly shows the inner edge of 73, wherein Eguchi’s 73 corresponds to Matsumoto’s 12, is spaced apart from 26 along the radial direction).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Eguchi and US 20210062402 A1 (hereinafter “Dunn”).
Examiner’s note: the term “closed-loop path” in claim 11 is assumed to reference a closed loop dryer, designed as a closed system in which heated air used to dry the materials is continuously recycled within the drying compartment of the dryer without being discharged to the atmosphere.
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except:
the primary airflow path is a closed-loop path,
the appliance comprising a heat exchanger disposed along the closed-loop path in thermal communication with the primary airflow path.
However, Dunn, in the same field of endeavor, dryer appliances with blowers, teaches:
the primary airflow path is a closed-loop path (paragraph 0028: “the inventive aspects of the present disclosure can apply to other types of closed loop airflow circuit dryer appliances. For instance, in other embodiments, dryer appliance 10 can be a condenser dryer that utilizes an air-to-air heat exchanger instead of evaporator 82”),
the appliance comprising a heat exchanger (paragraph 0028) disposed along the closed-loop path in thermal communication with the primary airflow path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumoto to include Dunn‘s teachings as described above, having Matsumoto’s a closed loop airflow path and a heat exchanger, in order to create a closed loop airflow circuit dryer appliance which can efficiently dry laundry articles (paragraph 0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745