Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/330,431

AXIAL FAN

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 07, 2023
Examiner
KASTURE, DNYANESH G
Art Unit
3746
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sanyo Denki Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
304 granted / 627 resolved
-21.5% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
659
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
34.2%
-5.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 627 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 16 January 2026. Claims 1 – 12 are pending and currently being examined. 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 Claims 3 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: In Re Claims 3 and 11, Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ho (PG Pub US 20060257254 A1). PNG media_image1.png 624 758 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated excerpt of Figure 3B of Ho In Re Claim 1, Ho discloses an axial fan (Figure 3B embodiment) comprising: an impeller cup (see annotated figure above); a fan (see annotated figure above) extending in a radial direction from the impeller cup; a motor (see annotated figure above) inside the impeller cup; a base portion (see annotated figure above) to which the motor is attached; and a housing (see where 219b points to) which stores the impeller cup, the fan and the motor, the housing including an inlet (212; Figure 2B; not labeled in Figure 3B, but it is on top) that takes in air and an outlet (214; Figure 2B; not labeled in Figure 3B, but it is on top) that discharge taken-in air, wherein an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is provided with an outer peripheral wall portion (inside the dashed circle where label 262 is) extending in an air-blowing direction (from top to bottom), the outer peripheral wall portion includes an upstream end (see annotated figure above) being an end on an upstream side in the air-blowing direction, and a downstream end (see annotated figure above) being an end on a downstream side in the air-blowing direction, the upstream end is located inward in the radial direction relative to an outer peripheral side surface (see annotated figure above) of the impeller cup, the downstream end is located outward in the radial direction relative to the upstream end and is located at the outlet (annotated figure above shows the outlet at the bottom), the outer peripheral wall portion includes an undersurface (see annotated figure above) and an uppermost surface (see annotated figure above) opposite the undersurface in the air-blowing direction, the uppermost surface faces a gap (grey shaded rectangle in above annotated figure) in the air-blowing direction, the gap is provided between the uppermost surface and the impeller cup in the air- blowing direction (as depicted), and the upstream end is located on the uppermost surface (as depicted), the outer peripheral wall portion has a largest outer diameter at the downstream end located at the outlet (as depicted), and the downstream end located at the outlet is a connecting portion of the outer peripheral wall portion and the undersurface (since flow is able to reach the undersurface from the outlet) (paragraph [0031]; Figure 3B). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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 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 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. 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 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tung (PG Pub US 20070013242 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tung in view of Ho (PG Pub US 20060257254 A1). PNG media_image2.png 588 804 media_image2.png Greyscale First annotated Figure 8 of Tung PNG media_image3.png 566 844 media_image3.png Greyscale Second annotated Figure 8 of Tung In Re Claim 1, the Figure 8 embodiment of Tung discloses an axial fan comprising: an impeller cup (83); a fan (86) extending in a radial direction from the impeller cup (83); a motor (6, 84) inside the impeller cup (83); a base portion (see first annotated figure 8 above) to which the motor (6, 84) is attached; and a housing (2) which stores the impeller cup (83), the fan (86) and the motor (6, 84), the housing (2) including an inlet (top of the figure – see label 19 in the Figure 2 embodiment) that takes in air and an outlet (bottom of the figure – see label 17 in the Figure 4 embodiment) that discharge taken-in air, wherein an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is provided with an outer peripheral wall portion (see first annotated figure 8 above) extending in an air-blowing direction (from top to bottom is the air blowing direction),the outer peripheral wall portion includes an upstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) being an end on an upstream side in the air-blowing direction, and a downstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) being an end on a downstream side in the air-blowing direction, the upstream end is located inward in the radial direction relative to an outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup (this is revealed upon a careful examination of the upstream end relative to the outer peripheral side surface in the first annotated figure 8 above), the downstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) is located outward in the radial direction relative to the upstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) and is located at the outlet (bottom most line in the first annotated figure 8 above), the outer peripheral wall portion includes an undersurface (see first annotated figure 8 above) and an uppermost surface (see first annotated figure 8 above) opposite the undersurface in the air-blowing direction, the uppermost surface faces a gap (see second annotated figure 8 above) in the air-blowing direction, the gap is provided between the uppermost surface and the impeller cup (83) in the air- blowing direction (see second annotated figure 8 above), and the upstream end is located on the uppermost surface (see second annotated figure 8 above), the outer peripheral wall portion has a largest outer diameter at the downstream end located at the outlet (see second annotated figure 8 above), and the downstream end located at the outlet is a connecting portion of the outer peripheral wall portion and the undersurface (since flow is able to reach the undersurface from the outlet) (paragraph [0004]; Figure 8). The examiner first contends above that Tung discloses that the outer peripheral wall portion has a largest outer diameter at the downstream end located at the outlet. Alternatively, if this is not clear to applicant: PNG media_image4.png 632 820 media_image4.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 3B of Ho However, the Figure 3B embodiment of Ho discloses that the outer peripheral wall portion has a largest outer diameter at the bottom end of the base portion (see annotated figure 3B above; paragraph [0031]). Note that Ho also discloses that the upstream end is located inward in the radial direction relative to an outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the diameter of the outer peripheral wall portion at the downstream end of Tung such that it is the largest as taught by Ho because the results of the substitution/modification are predictable as evidenced in paragraph [0031] of Ho which states that the slope (262) can be flat or curved (the curved shape is similar to the configuration of Tung) – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007). This a rationale that can be used to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B). In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the downstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) is located outward in the radial direction relative to the outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup (83). In Re Claims 3 and 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the upstream end and the downstream end are connected by a convex curved surface (as depicted - see second annotated figure 8 above). Ho also discloses that the upstream end (top end of 262) and the downstream end (bottom end of 262) are connected by a convex curved surface (paragraph [0031]: “The slope 262 is flat or curved”). PNG media_image5.png 608 862 media_image5.png Greyscale Third annotated Figure 8 of Tung In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that an angle of inclination being an angle formed by a virtual line passing through the upstream end and the downstream end and a cross section orthogonal to the air-blowing direction appears to be in the claimed range of 110° to 130° (see third annotated figure of Tung above). Ho also appears to disclose that the angle of slope 262 is in the claimed range of 110° to 130°. PNG media_image6.png 614 854 media_image6.png Greyscale Fourth annotated Figure 8 of Tung In Re Claims 5 and 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the upstream end (see fourth annotated figure 8 above) is located downstream of a downstream edge of the impeller cup (83), and the upstream end is located upstream of a board (see fourth annotated figure 8 above; for a clearer view of the board see label 57 in Figure 4) of the motor (6, 84). In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the impellor cup (83) includes a downstream edge (see fourth annotated figure 8 above) which defines the gap (see second annotated figure 8 above) between the upstream end of the outer peripheral wall portion and the downstream edge of the impellor cup (83). In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the base portion includes the undersurface and the outer peripheral wall portion extending from the undersurface toward the upstream side in the air-blowing direction (best seen in first annotated figure 8 above). In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and Tung further discloses that the upstream end of the outer peripheral wall portion of the base portion is placed in such a manner as to be hidden by the impeller cup (83) from view when the base portion is viewed along the air-blowing direction from the inlet via the impeller cup (83)(the entire extent of the upstream end/ uppermost surface is radially interior of the outer surface of the impeller cup; First annotated figure 8 above demonstrates the claimed limitations would be met when viewed from the top rather than the side view shown of figure 8). In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and Tung further discloses that the axial fan is an outer rotor axial fan (the magnet portion 84 is radially outside the stator 6, and is therefore an outer rotor). In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the outer peripheral wall portion has the largest outer diameter at the downstream end located at the outlet (see rejection of claim 1) so that a difference between a velocity of flow of air discharged from the outlet and a velocity of flow of air flowing along the undersurface is reduced (since the structure of the prior art is the same, the same result of the reduction in difference of velocity is expected because flow from the outlet is able to reach the undersurface). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM. 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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. /D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 12, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 10, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 16, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 02, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601332
INTEGRATED ELECTRO-HYDRAULIC UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12553444
VACUUM PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12529364
PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12460627
TORSION PUMP AND APPARATUS FOR SUPPLYING CHEMICAL LIQUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12448971
COMPACT LOW NOISE ROTARY COMPRESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+26.9%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 627 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month